diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/60005-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/60005-0.txt | 3767 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 3767 deletions
diff --git a/old/60005-0.txt b/old/60005-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 18f3b2a..0000000 --- a/old/60005-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,3767 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Gambling, by James Harold Romain - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Gambling - or, Fortuna, her temple and shrine. The true philosophy - and ethics of gambling - -Author: James Harold Romain - -Release Date: July 29, 2019 [EBook #60005] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GAMBLING *** - - - - -Produced by Turgut Dincer, Charlie Howard, and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -file was produced from images generously made available -by The Internet Archive) - - - - - - - - - -Gambling: - - Or, Fortuna, her Temple and - Shrine. The True Philosophy - and Ethics of Gambling. By - James Harold Romain. - - - [Illustration] - - - CHICAGO: - THE CRAIG PRESS. - 1891 - - - - - COPYRIGHT, 1891. - - JAMES HAROLD ROMAIN. - - - - -Publisher’s Note to the Public. - - -America is free and her people boast of her freedom in every realm -of thought and every department of activity. Her pride is a form of -discussion from which no man is excluded because of the opinions he -may advocate. We declare a man should be heard in the very face of -prejudice or passion. - -Mr. Romain’s book, in our judgment, is entitled to publication for -other reasons than those above mentioned. It is replete with learning, -and original in conception. The philosophy is broad and the tone -dignified. Patient research is manifest in every page. Every branch of -knowledge has been made to contribute its force to the argument. The -work is a mine of information in political speculation, social science -and moral philosophy. Mr. Romain is obviously in sympathy with the -widest possible circle of culture. For that reason, if for no other, -what he has to say is entitled to a respectful consideration. His -book is unique in design and wrought out with vigor. His appeal is to -philosophy, science and history; not to idle curiosity, purposeless -gossip, or the unimportant “personal equation” to which others have -been so prone. - -In the interest of fair play, but, confessedly, with no sympathy -for gambling, the book is offered to the people to decide as to the -correctness of its conclusions. - - ADAM CRAIG, Publisher. - - - - - This book is dedicated - To the - Hon. John Cameron Simonds, - - by the author, - as a token of esteem for his - fair-mindedness and sense of justice. - Although that gentleman is not a gamester, - nor in sympathy with the pursuit, - yet the author desires thus to acknowledge his - indebtedness to him for many valuable suggestions - in the preparation of this work. - - - - -[Illustration] - -PREFACE. - - -Two doughty knights, clad cap-a-pie in burnished mail, once journeyed -forth in search of martial adventure. Their noble steeds all -caparisoned for war, both wandered up and down through the world, -defending the fair and protecting the weak. Betimes they chance to -meet where stood in majestic beauty a bronze statue of victory. In her -right hand the goddess clasped a sword, while in graceful pose her left -rested upon an ægis richly wrought in the precious metals. Approaching -from opposite directions, to one warrior the shield appeared as of -gold, while to the other it was of silver. Low were bowed their -crested helms in courtly salutations. - -“Comely, Sir Knight,” said one, “comely and noble is this figure.” - -“Yea, thou hast spoken truly,” was the reply. - -“Precious, very precious,” rejoined the first, “must be yon golden -targe.” - -“Nay, Sir Knight, it is of silver, I trow.” - -“By my lady, thou liest,” quickly came the hot retort. - -Then, prancing chargers well in hand, with lances lowered to deadly -level, they prepared for the “wager of battle.” Both were unhorsed -in the onslaught. Regaining an upright posture, with swords drawn to -renew the duel, each observed that his reverse of the shield was what -the other had contended for. Moral: It is wise to look first upon both -sides of the subject. - -Not so, it is evident, has it been with books heretofore devoted to -a discussion of gambling. Their authors professed an exposition of -gaming in the interest of morality. Well may some of the books be read -for their wealth of information and excellent diction. Some have been -earnest, in places eloquent, and often suggestive. Vivid and dramatic -are the descriptions of a passion that has possessed the world in all -ages; yet, that the various assaults were conceived in wisdom, or that -they have resulted in permanent good, I am constrained to deny. - -True, I believe with Sir Walter Raleigh, that out of history may be -gathered a policy no less wise than eternal; “by the comparison and -application of other men’s forepassed miseries with our own like errors -and ill-deservings.” - -But why did it not occur to these writers that circumstances should -not be recorded merely because they have happened; that events deserve -memorial only because they illustrate some great principle; because -some inference is to be drawn from them, which may increase the -happiness or enlarge the powers of man? That it did not, we must -infer from the pages they have given to the world. Cicero declared -that “History is the light of truth.” In vain, however, do we look for -a consideration of causes in any history of gambling. “Histories,” -said Carlyle, “are as perfect as the historian is wise.” Is that book -wise wherein no adequate remedy is suggested for the evil it depicts? -Although interesting, such a work is but a chronicle devoid of moral -purpose. It is clear, to dwell upon the follies of man will not cure -them; that it will not strengthen humanity merely to portray their -weaknesses. The passion our author would combat is rooted in the soul. - - “Whose powers at once combat ye, and control, - Whose magic bondage each lost slave enjoys.” - -How would you extirpate the evil, if such it is? Expose a folly, you -may say, and wisdom will turn from it. You would have us believe, -perhaps, that: - - “Wisdom from heaven received her birth; - Her beams transmitted to the subject Earth.” - -And yet - - “This great empress of the human soul - Does only with imagined power control, - If restless passion, by rebellious sway, - Compels the weak usurper to obey.” - -So far as the history of gambling has ignored causes and neglected -remedies, it is incomplete. That it is deficient in both is my reason -for this book. Some one should begin the subject where other authors -have deserted it. - -I have long made a study of gaming in all its aspects and relations; -aiming, the while, at breadth, impartiality and thoroughness. At first -my reading was not conducted with a view to authorship. I desired -information for its own sake. As a gamester, I sought the philosophy of -gaming. - -What is chance? How far does it influence all mankind and circumscribe -their efforts? What is gambling, in the broadest sense of the term? -Is gaming wrong _per se_: i.e., absolutely vicious? Where in human -nature is the passion grounded? Why does the propensity exist? Is it -an inevitable tendency of human nature? What is morality? Wherein -does the gambler differ from other men? How should his occupation be -distinguished from business generally? How far may the conduct of an -individual be dictated by society? How may the essentially punitive be -distinguished from that which is not so? What are the true limits of -State power in relation to appetites and propensities? Are sumptuary -laws effectual? Does history, as the philosophy of example, justify -such enactments? Can the law eradicate innate tendencies? Can character -be transformed by statute? Is it possible to legislate morality into -mankind? What should be the policy of statesmen and reformers in the -realm of morals? If it is not possible to extirpate the passions by -law, how may they be regulated, directed, educated and purified? - -Such were the problems that confronted my understanding. Each and -all were resolved to the best of my knowledge and capacity. I make my -observations public in the interests of fair play and common sense. I -am at least entitled to the literary chances of a reading age. - -I have dallied with fickle fortune for years. As gamester, I -anticipated prejudices against the pursuit. My deductions are amply -fortified, therefore, from the mature studies of great and wise men. -I did not expect my book to stand unsupported. It is substantiated, -throughout, by the teachings of profound and impartial philosophers. - - - - -CONTENTS. - - - Page - PUBLISHER’S NOTE, 3 - - DEDICATION, 5 - - PREFACE, 7 - - INTRODUCTION, 19 - - THE WORSHIP OF FORTUNA, 27 - - WHAT IS TRUTH; OR, THE PHILOSOPHER’S STONE? 46 - - THE DESTINIES; OR, THE REIGN OF LAW, 103 - - LEGISLATIVE EXORCISM; OR, THE BELIEF IN WORD-MAGIC, 139 - - “THE KING IS DEAD--LONG LIVE THE KING!”, 211 - - - - -Introduction. - -[Illustration] - -INTRODUCTION. - - -A traveler once sought to explore an unknown country. Compass he had -not, and both chart and guide were wanting. In the distance a mountain -loomed above the plain. To its summit our traveler made his way. From -thence he beheld the region stretching away in all directions. The land -he would traverse the eye could now sweep from center to circumference. -It was not possible to know the landscape in detail, but the relative -proportions, distances and boundaries were unfolded at his feet. So, -when properly conceived, with the introduction to a book. A perspective -of the topic is conducive to a better understanding of its scope and -purpose. My object is to sustain the following propositions: - -_First._--Men have gambled in all ages of the world. That they will -continue to do so is a reasonable presumption. To gamble would seem -instinctive--inherent in the souls of mankind and fostered by the -very nature of their environment. History reveals that all alike are -possessed by this subtle passion--male and female, young and old, good -and bad, wise and unwise, rich and poor, the exalted and the lowly. In -every century may be seen a motley throng kneeling in devotion at the -feet of Fortuna. Eagerly about her shrine press the mighty concourse -of emperors, kings, chieftains, statesmen, ecclesiastics, savants, -philosophers, poets, soldiers and the wayfaring. Now and ever will -mankind court the mysterious and uncertain. - -_Second._--To define a wager is to defy intolerance of opinion. -Truth is not absolute but relative. It is not to be established _ex -cathedra_. Moralists are not in a position to denounce gambling _per -se_. They are not yet agreed upon the unconditioned principles of -right and wrong. Before it can speak with authority, moral philosophy -must find an ultimate, self-evident and irrefragable foundation. -That it is essentially criminal or necessarily vicious to invoke a -chance has never been demonstrated. To live is to gamble. We all wager -in one way or another. Luck is appealed to in every department of -human activity. Everywhere uncertainty is the rule and certainty the -exception. In the business world vast realms are specifically founded -upon the doctrine of chances. If absolutely wrong, then gambling should -be discountenanced in all persons under every circumstance. In whatever -guise it should be condemned as a principle. Until this has been done -society is not in a position to punish in one person what it permits -or commends in another. In its treatment of gambling the law is now -inconsistent, unjust and hypocritical. - -_Third._--Man is the creature of circumstances. Society is an organism -conditioned by its environments. Every nation must complete a cycle of -infancy, youth, manhood and old age. Briefly, history is a science--an -unbroken chain of causes and effects throughout the ages. Volition, -so-called, is delusive and shadowy--more apparent than real. At best, -we but yield to the greatest pressure of temperament or motive. Human -nature, in a word, is the result of inevitable tendencies. The passions -are inherent and cannot be violently uprooted. Character is innate and -not subject to arbitrary reform by extrinsic force. Here, as elsewhere, -evolution is the law of existence. While our appetites and propensities -may be educated, they can never be obliterated. Social and political -philosophy have repeatedly deduced these truths from the history of -man. In the field of reform officialism has been repudiated by the -greatest thinkers. Legislation, therefore, should conform to the light -of experience and the dictates of science. _Ergo_: in the future, as -in the past and present, the gaming passion will everywhere assert -itself, despite repressive legislation, however severe. - -_Fourth._--Sumptuary statutes are futile and impertinent. They are -to-day and ever have been indefensible and impolitic. Such laws are -an infringement upon individual rights and an insult to human nature. -Officious and pharisaical legislation in the province of morals and -taste should be abandoned once and forever. _Per se_, to gamble is -neither a sin nor a crime. For the law to punish the practice is futile -and unwarranted. - -_Conclusion._--An enlightened age demands the overthrow of an effete -administrative policy. In the realm of morals, let that be wisely -guided which the law cannot prevent. Gambling, with certain conditions, -should be licensed and placed under the surveillance of a police. - - - - -The Worship of Fortuna. - -[Illustration] - -CHAPTER I. - -The Worship of Fortuna. - - -Reader, in imagination go backward with me more than 20 centuries. -Enter with me the magnificent and imposing Temple of Fortuna, in old -Præneste. We are within the portico of that stately hemicycle. Far -above is the marble dome, and about us cluster the snowy columns. As -it is early morn, flamens and virgins are assembled inside the sacred -precincts. They are grouped about the flaming tripod, and the robes of -purple and white blend in harmony of color. The sanctuary is redolent -with burning incense. A golden image of the goddess, in heroic mould, -flashes back the rays of sunlight that penetrate the inner shadows. A -solemn chant entrances the ear, and our eyes turn to the westward. -Before us expands the Campagna, ninety miles in length and twenty-seven -in breadth. The undulating plain stretches away in all directions -until it sinks into the sea; thickly studded is the superb picture -with prosperous cities and “every rood of ground maintains its man.” -Everywhere is presented an appearance of comfort and rich cultivation. -Yonder, Mount Albanus towers to a height of 3,000 feet above the sea. -Looming majestically above its topmost peak is the Temple of Jupiter -Latiaris. The grandeur of mighty Rome is at our feet, a splendid and -stupendous panorama of temples, amphitheatres, basilicas, palaces, -circuses, baths, arches and aqueducts. Such was the spot dedicated to -Fortuna by the ancient Prænestians. She was more deeply enshrined in -their hearts than Olympian Jove himself. - -Præneste flourished before the birth of Christ or the glory of Rome. -The noble city occupied a projecting point or spur of the Apennines -and was distant from Rome, due east, about twenty-three miles. Above -its walls towered the Temple of Fortuna. The Temple proper was circular -in form and crowned the summit of a hill more than 2,400 feet above the -Mediterranean level. Standing out boldly against the sky, its majestic -outlines were visible from a great part of Latium. As extended by -Sulla, the sanctuary occupied a series of six vast terraces, which, -resting on gigantic substructions of masonry, and connected with each -other by grand staircases, rose one above the other on the hill, in the -form of a pyramid. Closely associated with the ritual of the Temple -were the “Prænestine Lots,” or Sortes Prænestinæ, and in existence -at the beginning of the Christian era. Constantine, and subsequently -Theodosius, suppressed the oracle. Its celebrity is attested by Lucan, -Horace and Ovid. Cicero speaks of the great antiquity and magnificence -of this shrine. Numerous were the great men who petitioned the -Prænestine Fortuna for assistance. Of the number may be mentioned -Tiberius, Domitian and Alexander Severus. Even Sulla sought to -propitiate the goddess before engaging in his successful wars with -Mithridates. - -Plutarch tells us of Timotheus, the Athenian, son of Conon, who, “when -his adversaries ascribed his successes to his good luck, and had a -painting made representing him asleep, and Fortune by his side, casting -her nets over the cities, was rough and violent in his indignation at -those who did it, as if, by attributing all to Fortune, they had robbed -him of his just honors; and said to the people, on one occasion, at -his return from war: ‘In this, ye men of Athens, Fortune had no part!’ -A piece of petulance which the deity played back upon Timotheus; who, -from that time, was never able to achieve anything that was great.” - -“Sylla,” he continues, “on the contrary, not only accepted the credit -of such divine favors with pleasure, but gave the honor of all to -Fortune. He once remarked: ‘that of all his well-advised actions, none -proved so lucky in the execution, as what he had boldly enterprised, -not by calculation, but upon the moment.’ He gave Fortune a higher -place than merit, and made himself ‘entirely the creature of a superior -power.’” - -The Goddess of Chance, or Good Luck, actually existed in the -imagination of the ancients. Chapman writes: - - “The old Scythians - Painted blind Fortune’s powerful hands with wings, - To show, her gifts come swiftly and suddenly, - Which, if her favorites be not swift to take, - He loses them forever.” - -Temples to Fortuna (the Greek Tyche) dotted the sunlit landscape from -Thebes to Rome. She was adored by the Etrurians as Nortia. Originating -near Mount Parnassus, her worship gradually extended into all parts of -Greece and Italy. Antium, an opulent and powerful city of Latium, was -once celebrated for its splendid temple of Fortune. - -History discloses not a period, however remote, when Fortuna was not -a favorite with the Latins. Numa Pompilius daily prostrated himself -before her altar, and the ceremonial received a new impetus from his -pious grandson, Ancus Martius. Servius Tullius ascribed his power -and success to the gods. Especially did he assume the protection of -Fortuna. Two temples were erected to her by this great king, one in the -Forum Boarium and the other on the Tiber. By some it is said that the -edifices were respectively dedicated to Bona Fortuna and Fors Fortuna. -Yet another gorgeous structure afterward graced the Quirinal. - -Precisely when the mythological system lost its influence is not -known. It is not true, however, as was once generally believed, that -immediately after the birth of Jesus the oracles were forever hushed. -While, long prior to that event, many fanes had been deserted, yet -others continued to flourish for at least two centuries thereafter. -Before the Christian era, Mythology had been repudiated by Philosophy -and Science. To the learned it was at best but expressive of the -principles back of natural phenomena. Only because it was largely -identified with the state, did it receive the support of politicians. -Yielding to the spirit of Christianity, the Olympian deities departed -with the decline of Rome as a pagan power. - -Of all the shining throng that beautified the Pantheon, Fortuna alone -refused to abdicate a sovereignty she would exercise to the end of -time. True, the exquisite forms in which she had charmed the eye -were destroyed and her temples razed with the earth; yet has Fortuna -continued her uninterrupted sway over the hearts of men. Sanctuaries -and statutes were not necessary to her supremacy in the world. She was -enshrined in the soul--her worship instinctive in the very nature of -humanity. Where is the epoch of Christendom in which an innumerable -multitude have not worshiped this imperial goddess? Among her devotees -may be included men famous in every department of life: politics, -statesmanship, war, eloquence, philosophy, science, art, literature -and the liberal professions. A review of the brilliant procession is -profoundly suggestive. - -Great Cyrus, who founded the Persian monarchy; Darius, who originated -centralized imperialism and reduced it to a system; Artaxerxes -Third, the greatest administrator of remote antiquity; Miltiades, -a name associated with the glories of Marathon, once designated -“freedom’s best and bravest friend;” Themistocles, to whom may -be fairly ascribed the victory at Salamis; Simonides, gentle and -patient, the poet of nationality and patriotism; Aristophanes, the -great father, and Menander, the acknowledged master of Greek comedy; -Pericles, the “Olympian Zeus of oratory,” a great statesman and one -of the most remarkable characters of Greece; Plato, whose name is -synonymous with all that is most exalted in idealism; Xenophon, a -friend and pupil of Socrates, and to whom the world is indebted for -“Memorabilia,” “Anabasis,” and “Cyropædia;” Demosthenes, known to -oratory as the “greatest Hellenic star;” Isocrates, his contemporary, -the distinguished rhetorician; Philip of Macedon, the famous father of -a more famous son; great Alexander, “Child of Zeus,” “Son of Peleus,” -familiar to every schoolboy as the greatest of military conquerors. - -In the resplendent story of Rome are Scipio Africanus, a military -genius, and the conqueror of Hannibal; Cornelius Sulla, the great -general, sagacious politician, accomplished scholar, “one of the most -remarkable figures of all time;” Julius Cæsar, equally preëminent in -statecraft, war and letters; Marc Antony, brave and generous; Lepidus, -not the least of the second great triumvirate; Augustus, than whom a -more consummate ruler and prudent statesman never lived; Tiberius, a -writer of Greek odes and an orator at nine years of age; in battle he -repeatedly worsted the Parthians, Cantabrians, Dalmatians, Pannonians -and Illyrians; Domitian, conspicuous for his piety, who enforced the -laws against adultery and other gross forms of immorality; Titus, -bewailed at his death as “the love and light of the human race;” -Hadrian, just, liberal, valorous and energetic; Nerva, humane and -progressive; Trajan, indomitable and heroic; Alexander Severus, a -virtuous prince, a student of Christianity, and the friend of Paulus -and Ulpian; Sallust, distinguished in Latin literature for power and -animation; Livy, the man of beautiful genius; the graceful Catullus; -exquisite Horace and facile Ovid. - -Among the Germanic peoples, Eugene of Savoy, a memory cherished by -Austria, who lived but for glory, and raised the Hapsburg arms to a -prestige unequaled before or since; Wallenstein, bold, imperious and of -versatile ability in civil and military affairs. - -In Italy, the Abbes Ruccellai and Frangipanni, pious and charitable; -Reni Guido, who painted the marvellous “Crucifixion of St. Peter’s,” -and the “Aurora.” In art, he expressed a most refined and fervent -spiritualism. - -The Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Charles of France, distinguished, -respectively, as “The Wise,” “The Beloved,” and “The Victorious;” -Charles VIII., who, with but 9,000 soldiers, defeated an Italian -army of 40,000 men; Louis XI., ever admirable for his administrative -talent, a friend of the middle classes, he restrained a turbulent and -oppressive nobility; Louis XII., of France, a “father of the people;” -Louis XIII., distinguished for valor and martial ability; Louis XIV., -better known to the world as “The Great,” and to his country as -Dieu-donne--“God-given;” the amiable and picturesque Henry of Navarre, -the champion of Protestantism and protector of the Huguenots; Philibert -de Chalon, fertile and resolute; Bertrand du Guesclin, “king of the -tournament,” the “hero of heroes;” Condé and Turenne, both profound and -alert; Marshall Saxe, energetic and courageous; Napoleon Bonaparte, a -titanic genius of transcendent powers, king of kings, “the astonishment -and terror of the world;” Ney, bravest of the brave, the victor of -Elchingen, Mannheim and Moskva; Murat, “the Gold Eagle,” a truly wise -king, and the greatest cavalry leader of his time; Richelieu, greatest -statesman of the 17th century; Mazarin, brilliant in ministerial -policy, and the wise architect of peace at Westphalia; Mirabeau, a man -of gigantic thoughts and deeds--the mental Colossus of his age--“an -intellectual Hercules;” Talleyrand, unexcelled in diplomacy and eminent -as a financier; Thiers, equally able in politics and literature; M. -Sallo, counselor to the Parliament of Paris, and Mathieu Mole, at one -time the Premier-President of that body; Molière, the inimitable; -Corneille, creator of French tragedy; Rotrou, his master; and -Racine; Montaigne, the essayist, extraordinary for his learning and -sound reason; Paschasius Justus, an erudite and excellent physician; -Rousseau, apostle of universal happiness, and unrivaled in the -literature of France for the subtle eloquence of his style; Voltaire, -world-famous Sage of Ferney, the “sovereign writer of his century;” -René Descarte, deservedly exalted in philosophy and mathematics; the -delightful poets, Voiture and Coquillart, with the renowned Cardinals -D’Este and De Medicis. - -Fair Albion comes into the story with “Lion-Hearted” Richard, the -incomparable knight-errant; Edward I., unequaled in his century as -warrior and ruler; Edward III., who befriended literature and art, -and espoused the cause of progress; his son, the Black Prince, “most -glorious star of chivalry;” Henry VIII., a foe to papacy, and for a -time the most popular monarch in English history; “Ye Merrie King -Charles;” Duke of Marlborough, the brilliant and successful general; -Arthur Wellesley, “The Iron Duke,” venerated and beloved; Horatio -Nelson, of magnificent exploits and stupendous victories, who said: -“Where anything great is to be done, there Providence is sure to -direct my steps;” unrivaled was he in daring resource and skill; Sir -Charles Napier, conqueror of Sinde and the “acknowledged hero of a -family of heroes;” Dan Chaucer, “that first sweet warbler” of English -verse, philosopher, politician and poet; Marlowe, the mightiest of -Shakespeare’s pioneers; Shakespeare, himself, “sweet swan of Avon,” -myriad-minded and wondrous; “rare” Ben Jonson; Raleigh, a universal -genius--“the glass of fashion and mould of form;” Surrey, polished and -chivalric; John Dryden, of whom Dr. Johnson said: “As Augustus was -to Rome, so was Dryden to English literature. He found it brick and -left it marble;” Dr. Tobias Smollett, who wrote “Humphrey Clinker;” -Fielding, the frank and manly author of “Tom Jones;” sweet Oliver -Goldsmith, in letters perspicuous, vivacious, and graceful; Halifax, - - “Jotham of piercing wit and pregnant truth, - Endued by nature and by learning taught - To move assemblies;” - -the first Marquis of Anglesey, high-spirited and impetuous, a dashing -general of cavalry; that best of Irish Viceroys, Frederic Howard, Earl -of Carlisle; Lord Bolingbroke, accomplished and eloquent; Shaftesbury, -the incorruptible statesman, upright judge and friend of religious -freedom; Horace Walpole, of whom Macaulay said, that his writings “were -among the delicacies of intellectual epicures;” Dr. Dodd, divine, -author, editor and chaplain of the king; George Selwin, the celebrated -conversational wit; Sir Philip Francis, immortal as “Junius,” and a -“friend of the people;” the artistic Farquhar; courtly Waller; elegant -Dorset; charming Sedley; and scholarly Congreve; jolly Dick Steele, a -master of classical prose; Charles James Fox, of whom James Mackintosh -said: “He is the most Demosthenian speaker since Demosthenes;” -Sheridan, “capable of the grandest triumphs in oratory,” and noted for -his sparkling wit and exquisite songs; Wilberforce, who dedicated his -life to a struggle for the abolition of the slave-trade; Edward Gibbon, -the historian, splendid, imposing and luminous; Ponsonby, once speaker -of the Irish House of Commons; Dr. Colton, author of “Lacon;” William -Pitt, of dauntless spirit and unimpeachable integrity; and Lord Byron, -a poet famed for his passionate eloquence and pathetic gloom. - -Fortuna may proudly enumerate her great votaries in America: Aaron -Burr, Edgar Allan Poe, William Wirt, Luther Martin, Gouverneur -Morris, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, General Hayne, Sam Houston, -Andrew Jackson, Generals Burnett, Sickles, Kearney, Steedman, Hooker, -Hurlbut, Sheridan, Kilpatrick, Ulysses S. Grant, George D. Prentiss, -Sargeant S. Prentiss, Albert Pike, A. P. Hill, Beauregard, Early; -Ben Hill, Robert Toombs, George H. Pendleton, Thaddeus Stevens, -Green of Missouri, Herbert and Fitch of California, “Jerry” McKibben, -James A. Bayard--father of the recent Secretary of State--Benjamin F. -Wade, the lamented Broderick, John C. Fremont, Judge Magowan, Charles -Spencer, Fernando Wood and his brother Benjamin, Colonel McClure, -Senator Wolcott, Senator Pettigrew, Senator Farwell, Matthew Carpenter, -Thomas Scott, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Hutchinson of Chicago, and Pierre -Lorrillard. Names might be extended indefinitely. Enough have been -mentioned to illustrate how the gambling habit permeates all ranks of -society in the United States. - -With the conclusion of our retrospect, we may well exclaim: What is the -nature of a passion so inveterate and general: of a propensity that -dominates all mankind alike, whether noble or mean, wise or foolish, -strong or weak? “Is there a remedy?” propounds the philosopher. The -legislator asks, “What is my duty?” - - - - -What is Truth? - -or, - -The Philosopher’s Stone. - -[Illustration] - -CHAPTER II. - -What is Truth; or, the Philosopher’s Stone? - - -In mediæval romance the Alchemist is a familiar figure--with flowing -robe and skull-cap, in the midst of crucibles and alembics. This period -of the world did not present a feature more weird and picturesque: -a body of learned but misguided men, professing the “chemistry of -chemistries.” With eagerness and devotion they vainly sought for a -principle that could indefinitely prolong human life and transmute -the baser metals into gold and silver. Although centuries have -elapsed since Gebir and Paracelsus, yet the “philosopher’s stone” is -a desideratum. Of the Alchemists it has been quaintly said by Percy, -“that their respective histories were accurate illustrations of the -definition which describes Alchemy as an Art without principle, which -begins in falsehood, proceeds in labor, and ends in beggary.” - -Forcibly suggestive is this picture of moral philosophy and -philosophers. From the remotest ages certain men have arrogated to -themselves a knowledge in the realm of ethics much superior to their -brethren. It was manifested by the “gnomic” poetry of Greece, more than -700 years B. C., and in the oracular sayings of the so-called “seven -sages” of antiquity. To this day a similar class of wiseacres may be -found in all parts of the earth. The moralists, however, search not -for the universal medicine or an irresistible solvent. Such persons -admit the “grand elixir” is a delusion; and yet, their ambition is -more daring and presumptious. They would “be as gods, knowing good and -evil.” “Gold is but dross,” they exclaim, “our quest is for _necessary_ -moral truth. We seek _immutable_ righteousness.” Long ago was Alchemy -abandoned as futile. Not so the egotistic dogmatism of the moral -philosophers: with them self-conceit has remained incorrigible, from -Socrates and Plato, through Kant and Hegel, to Martineau and Janet. -In vain, their assumptions have been repeatedly demolished and their -deductions refuted. Unmindful are they, also, of the irreconcilable -conflict of “schools”--the hopeless contradiction of “systems.” -Fully one hundred great thinkers, first and last, have asserted the -discovery of indubitable “good.” But no two of them all agreed upon -the infallible line of distinction between what “ought to be” and -its opposite. In fact, every individual of the number represents a -different scheme. All moral philosophers asseverate the necessity for -an authoritative standard of right and wrong--for some peremptory -and incontestable guide to human conduct. Otherwise, they admit, one -opinion is no more acceptable or commanding than another. - -Some affirm the existence of an innate faculty, the unerring dictates -of which are defended. But Bentham (a great jurist) denounced the -“moral sense” man as a bully who would brow-beat others into accepting -his verdict. All such appeals were described by him as sheer “_ipse -dixitism_: as a fraud by which incompetent philosophers would palm -their own tastes and fancies upon mankind.” “One man,” wrote Bentham -of Shaftesbury, “says _he_ has a thing made on purpose to tell _him_ -what is right and what is wrong; and that it is called _moral sense_: -then he goes to work at his ease and says such and such a thing is -right, and such and such a thing is wrong. Why? ‘Because _my_ moral -sense tells me it is.’” Of the inner-capacity-philosopher, Hazlitt -remarked that “his excessive egotism filled all objects with himself.” -To Crabbe, “he was a self-conceited man, who pretends to see through -intuition what others learn by experience and observation; to know in -a day what another wants years to acquire; to learn of himself what -others are contented to get by means of instruction.” - -Archdeacon Paley, again, ridiculed as worthless a “moral sense” which -man may disregard if he chooses. What is an _authority_, said Paley, -merely felt in the individual consciousness: a personal whim, the mere -accident of individuality. What, he asks, is the authority of another’s -conscience to me? What, indeed, _is_ my conscience, and _why_ is it an -authority to myself? We can never know whether it is “a real angel with -flaming sword, or a scare-crow dressed up by the moral philosophers.” -Did the “moral sense” exist, should we not see a universal evidence -of its influence? Would not men exhibit a more manifest obedience -to its supposed dictates than they do? Would there not be a greater -uniformity of opinion, as to the rightness or wrongness of opinions, as -to the rightness or wrongness of actions? “We should, not, as now, find -one man or nation considering as a virtue what another regards as a -vice--Malays glorying in the piracy abhorred by civilized races--a Thug -regarding as a religious act that assassination at which a European -shudders--a Russian piquing himself on his successful trickery--a red -Indian in his undying revenge--things which with us would hardly be -boasted of. - -“Again, if this moral sense exist and possess no fixity, gives -no uniform response, says one thing in Europe and another in -Asia--originates different notions of duty in each age, each race, -each individual, how can it afford a safe foundation for a systematic -morality? What can be more absurd than to seek a definite rule of right -in the answers of so uncertain an authority?” - -Can it be fairly said, my reader, that such men are in a position to -judge the gambler, or to denounce his vocation? May not the gamester -ask of this sect: By what authority do you pronounce judgment, “out -of hand,” upon me and mine? Where is your standard--authentic, -determinative, undeniable, irrefutable? Am I subject to the dominion of -your conscience? In my opinion, gaming is not a sin. In what is your -judgment superior to mine? Moreover, I defy you to demonstrate a wager -is wrong, _per se_. If you find this impossible, I am free to repudiate -your dogmatism. To know, also, that gaming is not _prima facie_ sinful, -we have but to define it. - -The lexicographers define a gamester as “one who plays for money or -other stake;” and gaming “to be the use of cards, dice, or other -implement, with a view to win money, or other thing, wagered upon the -issue of the contest.” Is this a description of anything forbidden -by the decalogue? Where, in the old or new testament, is a similar -transaction denounced as a sin? But, it may be said, perhaps, the -foregoing definition does not suffice for moral consideration: it -ignores the element of chance, which enters more or less into all -games. This would imply that it is immoral to invoke a fortuity. Is it? - -Here, the great Jefferson may be quoted with propriety: “It is a common -idea that games of chance are immoral. But what is chance? Nothing -happens in this world without a cause. If we know the cause, we do not -call it chance, but if we do not know it, we say it was produced by -chance. If we see a loaded die turn its lightest side up, we know the -cause, and that it is not an effect produced by chance; but whatever -side an unloaded die turns up, not knowing the cause, we say it is the -effect of chance. Yet, the morality of the thing cannot depend on our -knowledge or ignorance of its cause. Not knowing _why_ a particular -side of an unloaded die turns up, cannot make the act of throwing, or -of betting on it, immoral. If we consider games of chance immoral, then -every pursuit of human industry is immoral, for there is not a single -one that is not subject to chance; not one, wherein you do not risk a -loss for the chance of some gain.” - -In “Paradise Lost,” Milton declares: - - “Next him, high arbiter, - _Chance_ governs all!” - -And of mankind we read in Ecclesiastes that “time and _chance_ -happeneth to them”--mankind. (9:11). Among the Hebrews, property was -divided and disputes were decided, “by lot.” The custom is mentioned -by Solomon, Matthew and Luke. (Prov. 16:33; Matt. 27:35; Luke 10.) -Furthermore, this mode of appeal to destiny is sanctioned, yea, even -prescribed, by the Bible. According to Leviticus, Aaron was commanded -“to take the two goats, and present them before the Lord, at the door -of the tabernacle of the congregation. And Aaron shall _cast lots_ -upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the -scape-goat. And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord’s lot -fell, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat on which the lot -fell to be the scape-goat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, -to make an atonement with him and to let him go for a scape-goat into -the wilderness.” (16:7, 8, 9.) - -_Thus was chance invested with the sanctity of a religious observance._ - -Moses was instructed that the “Promised Land” should be divided -among the Hebrews “by lot.” The method is described in Numbers: -“Notwithstanding, the land shall be divided by lot, according to the -names of the tribes of their fathers shall they inherit. According to -lot shall the possession thereof be divided between many and few.” -This direction was followed to the letter by “Eleazar, the priest, and -Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of -the children of Israel;” for we are told in Joshua, that “By lot was -their inheritance; as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses, for the -nine tribes and for the half tribe.” (Josh 14:1, 2; 18:6.) - -_Luck, then, decided the tenure of the tribes in Canaan--a title -dictated by Divinity._ - -Joshua determined, by lot, that it was Achan, of the tribe of -Judah, who had taken “the accursed thing” and thus brought upon -Israel the disaster at Ai. (Josh. 7:14.) During the great battle -of Michmash-Aijalon, Saul said unto the Israelites: “Cursed be the -man that eateth any food until evening, that I may be avenged on my -enemies.” - -Unmindful of this oath, wild honey was eaten by his son, in a moment -of extreme hunger. No one would divulge that the king’s adjuration had -been disregarded by the beloved Jonathan. “Therefore, Saul said unto -the Lord God of Israel, give a perfect lot. And Saul and Jonathan were -taken: but the people escaped. And Saul said, Cast lots between me and -Jonathan, my son. And Jonathan was taken.” (1 Sam. 14:40, 42.) - -_By lot, likewise, the question of “ministry and apostleship” was -decided against Justus and in favor of Matthias._ (Acts 1:26.) - -Briefly, if the Bible is a divine production, how can appeals to -chance be stigmatized as vicious or irreligious? Also, it is not to -be denied that chance, or casualty, enters very largely into every -department of human action. Men are compelled to take ventures every -day; the engineer faces them; so does the sea captain; the same may be -said of the doctor, the surgeon, the lawyer and the banker. A merchant -encounters all the risks of trade; the hostility of the elements and -the bankruptcy of others. The rains may rot or the drouths destroy the -crops of the farmer. And almost, in the words of Ben Jonson, throughout -the world, - - “All human business, fortune doth command, - Without all order, and with her blind hand, - She, blind, bestows blind gifts, that still have nurst, - They see not who nor how.” - -The politician, too, might say with Macbeth: “If chance will have me -king, why, chance may crown me.” War is a mighty game between giants. -In truth, of Napoleon the poet has said: - - “Whose game was empires, and whose stakes were thrones, - Whose table, earth; whose dice, were human bones.” - -Beyond this, even our laws and institutions appeal to chance. In the -United States Senate, whom, respectively, of two members--elected at -the same time--shall serve for the long and short term, is decided by -lot. The law recognizes that even property may be thus divided. “When -an estate is apportioned into three parts, and one part is given to -each of three persons; the proper way is to ascertain each one’s part -by drawing lots.” Thus is the rule stated by Bouvier and Wolff. The -Illinois Statutes, for the regulation of elections, enact that “when -two or more persons receive an equal and the highest number of votes -for an office to be filled by the county alone, that county clerk shall -issue a notice to such persons of such tie vote, and require them to -appear at his office, on a day named in the notice, within ten days -from the day of election, and determine by lot which of them is to be -declared elected. On the day appointed the clerk and other canvassers -shall attend, and the parties interested shall appear and determine by -lot which of them is to be declared elected.” Similar laws exist in -other states. - -Some moralists admit the validity of a transaction, notwithstanding it -may depend upon chance. They will concede there is no intrinsic wrong -in any species of game, unless there exists an inequality of chance or -skill. Not so, thought Paley, the Christian philosopher, whose name is -a household word for purity, zeal and power. He said: “What some say of -this kind of contract, that one side ought not to have any advantage -over the other, is neither practical nor true. This would require -perfect equality of skill and judgment, which is seldom to be met with. -I might not have it in my power to play with fairness a game of cards -once in a twelvemonth, if I must wait till I meet with a person whose -art, skill and judgment are neither greater nor less than my own. Nor -is this equality requisite to the justice of the contract. One man -may give to another the whole of the stake if he chooses, and the -other may justly accept it if it be given him; much more, therefore, -may one give another an advantage in the chance of winning the whole. -The only proper restriction is, that neither side have an advantage -by means of which the other is not aware. The same distinction holds -of all transactions and proceedings into which chance enters; such as -insurance, and speculations in trade or in stocks.” - -In this connection, with what force could be quoted the sweet Nazarene -in His parable of the vineyard laborers: “Friend, I do thee no wrong; -didst thou not agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go -thy way; I will give unto this last even as unto thee. _Is it not -lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?_” (Matt. 20:13, 14, 15.) - -Here the mathematicians attempt to rescue moral philosophy. They would -demonstrate the improbability of luck. If asked how it happened that -a man won a hundred thousand dollar prize, while his neighbor drew a -blank, the mathematician might tell you it was chance; that there was -a necessity for the prize to fall somewhere, and that he who had the -most chances was the most likely to obtain it. Such caviling could be -dismissed with the answer: You acknowledge the necessity of a prize -falling _somewhere_, then why not to me. Surely my chances are as good -as my neighbors’, perhaps more so. It may be; and what may be may be -now. “There is no prerogative in human hours.” “There is a tide in the -affairs of men, which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.” - -No intelligent gambler is a believer in “luck” as _a personal quality_. -He recognizes the phenomena of chance. _How_ they will operate is not -known to the mathematician more than to him; the “chances” may result -favorably or unfavorably for a gambler; the law may so work as to -benefit him, or it may not. Whether “chance” or “luck,” is immaterial -to the issue. - -But seriously, for what do these aspirants contend? A method of -reasoning from the happening of an event to the _probabilities_ of one -or another cause; that the possible combinations in a pack of cards, -or a handful of dice, may be computed, even when the question involves -the chances of a thousand dice, or a thousand throws of one die. In -its very nature this is a vain-glorious pretension, and upon what is -it based? An _hypothesis_ presenting the necessity of one or another -out of a certain number of consequences. In other words, _given_ an -event as having happened, and which _might_ have been the consequence -of either of several causes, or explicable by either of several -_hypotheses_, the probabilities can be _inferred_. - -In this way is the philosophy of supposition substituted for that of -caprice. We are asked by the mathematician, at the very outset, to -assume something he has not proved, and which is not susceptible of -proof. We are required to take for granted the imaginary premises -upon which his argument depends. Is this not the acme of intellectual -audacity? But having yielded his antecedent proposition, what is the -result? A bare probability--a mere likelihood of the occurrence of any -event. - -So much for the boasted “Doctrine of Chances.” Besides, I assert that -every premise of the mathematician has been refuted by my experience -as a gamester. In the proper place, I could disprove his every theory -with a fact. For example: De Morgan and Proctor tell us that it is not -probable seven could be thrown ten successive times, with a pair of -dice. We are told, on good authority, that in 1813, a Mr. Ogden wagered -1,000 guineas that his opponent would not perform this feat. That -gentleman threw seven _nine times_ running. - -However, the mathematicians are not concerned with the right or wrong -of play for money. They seek to demonstrate the inequalities of chance, -hoping thus to dissuade humanity from its pursuit. Their efforts are -idle. “The proverb which advises us to throw a sprat to catch a whale, -shows that mankind consider a chance of a gain to be a benefit for -which it is worth while to give up a proportionate certainty.” These -gentlemen have extended their conjectures to the risks of loss or gain -in general commerce; the probable continuity of life and duration of -marriage; the contingencies in political results and the verdicts of -juries; the distributions of sex in births, and even the probability of -error in any opinion that may be generally received. In fact, should -their guesses be heeded by the world, enterprise and hope would depart. - -Another class of moralizers reject and deride the idea of “innate -notions.” Truth, they maintain, is not to be found in worn out -abstractions and moral senses, which are the weak reproductions of -material organisms. In ethics, if they are to be followed, we must -set out with the convictions that our materials are relative and not -absolute, and that our highest moral conceptions must partake of the -same character. As stated by Posnett, systems of ethics, more or less -perfect in their day, have vanished in the progress of society and -mind. Systems of ethics, whether we see or care to see it, are gliding -from amongst us at this moment, while others, “with strange faces are -growing familiar by the slowness of their approach.” - -To illustrate from Chenebix: Nothing can appear more definite than -virtue; yet, in Asia, the term may denote submission; in Europe and -America, resistance; to Mussulmans war; to Christians, peace. Honor, -too, which its votaries describe as one and incorruptible, assumes -various significations. In some countries it prescribes revenge for -an injury received; in others, forgiveness. Here, the violation of -female chastity is a disgrace, elsewhere it is a duty. To a Mussulman -the eating of pork is “vile and unclean: fills his soul with aversion, -repugnance, disgust. To this habit their antipathy is deep and -intuitive. To the natives of Western India, eating beef is sacrilegious -and revolting. In Spain, any other worship than that established by -the Catholic church is impious and in the highest degree offensive -to God. The people of all Southern Europe regard a married clergy as -irreligious, indecent, unchaste, gross and disgusting. Wherever the -Puritans have been sufficiently powerful they have endeavored to put -down all public, and nearly all private amusements: music, dancing, the -theatre and public games.” - -This denomination, strange as it may seem, also urge upon mankind -what, in their opinion, is the “true moral rule”--the correct standard -of right. It is that which is established by authority, custom, or -general consent. A variable and doubtful criterion, this, one would -naturally suppose. How severely has it been treated by Spencer and -Carpenter. Right and wrong are not _essentially_ different. All -moral distinctions are a matter of arbitrary establishment by the -“powers that be.” That which is statutory, customary, fashionable, or -generally habitual, is fit and proper. Conduct is purely a question of -majority and might. Place gambling in the ascendant to-morrow and it -would be just; or, as the major part of humanity, gamesters would be -respectable; for an opinion commonly accepted is the correct opinion. -With this as a guide, can the state hold the gamester reprobate? - -Society keeps changing its sentiments with the centuries. Absolutely, -we can never know when it is right or when it is wrong. The outlaw -of one era is the idol of another. Servetus was immolated by the -Calvinists, to-day he is a martyr to conscience. Bruno was burned as a -heretic, now he is the hero of philosophy and science. - -Galileo and Roger Bacon were once execrated by the church--their bones -lie in unknown and unhonored graves. We regard them as brave pioneers -of human thought. The formerly despised and hunted Christians are -become the greatest power on earth. The Jew money-lender of the “dark -ages” (whom such as Front-de-Bœuf once tortured with impunity) is the -Rothschild of our century--“the guest of princes and the instigator of -commercial wars.” Shylock is now an influential and courted capitalist. -“All the glories of Alexander do not condone, in our eyes, for his -cruelty in crucifying the brave defenders of Tyre, by thousands, along -the sea-shore; and if Solomon, with his thousand wives and concubines, -were to appear in London or New York to-morrow, even the most frivolous -circles would be shocked, and Brigham Young, by contrast, seem a -domestic model.” - -From Cæsar we learn that the Suevi held their lands in common; that -private property in the soil did not obtain with the Gauls and Germans. -The same is true of the North American Indians and some of the Pacific -Islanders. It is conceded, moreover, that communistic principles were -generally prevalent in the earliest ages of the world. Then, any -attempt at exclusive individual possession of land or chattel would -have been deemed a theft. - -The mediæval ideal was an ascetic and monastic life. To-day, millions -regard such a course as unwise, if not wicked. Poverty, heretofore -esteemed as the badge of honor and dignity, is by our era adjudged -offensive. Nomadism prevailed in a former age. Now gypsies and tramps -are the outcasts of society. Regarding marriage, public opinion has -varied through all phases, without attaining finality. In earliest -times how indiscriminate is the tie--the monstrous relation of brother -and sister being the rule, rather than the exception. Polygamy -prevails with one people and polyandry among another. In India and the -Orient a wife is hidden from the dearest friend, while in Africa a -chief will put his mate to bed with a guest. In Japan young women, even -of good birth, “are free in their intercourse with men, till they are -married; at Paris they are free after.” - -In ancient Greece and Rome, again, marriage was not the highest -conception, and largely “a matter of convenience and housekeeping.” -Wives were little, if any better, than slaves. The class of women -known as Hetairai (concubines and mistresses) were openly honored and -trusted by both political and social leaders. The name of Aspasia is -closely associated with that of Pericles. Theodota was the intimate of -Socrates. Diotima has been immortalized in the “Symposium” of Plato. - -The splendid ideal of our century is the monogamic state--“the -great theme of romantic literature, and the climax of a myriad -novels and poems.” In classic Greece the idealistic model was male -friendship--comradeship. We have its type in the heroic figures of -Harmodius and Aristogiton. The Theban Legion, or “Sacred Band,” -exemplified the principle. No man might enter without his lover. -Although annihilated at the battle of Chæronæa, it was never -vanquished. The literature of Greece and Rome illuminate this exalted -sentiment. The writings of Pliny the younger, Cicero and Lucian, are -worthy of especial mention. Many sweet and noble friendships are -embalmed in the poetry of Hellas and Latium; Demetrius and Antiphilus; -Damon and Pythias; Phocion and Nicoles; Glaucus and Diomedes; Philades -and Orestes; Cicero and Atticus; Socrates and Alcibiades; Lucilius and -Brutus; Tiberius Gracchus and Blossius; Caius Gracchus and Licinus. - -Suicide was not thought unworthy by the ancients. It was resorted to -by Anthony, Brutus, Cassius, Cato, and Zeno. To-day, the attempt -is a crime, and its consummation a disgrace. In Europe and America -it is _felo-de-se_. Infanticide is common in many parts of Asia and -Africa. To-day the feudal baron would be adjudged a freebooter; the -knight-errant a brawling vagabond. A nineteenth century man may -beat his wife within an inch of her life, and get but three months. -For stealing a suit of clothes he would be “sent up” for years. So -“gambling on ’change is now respectable enough, but pitch and toss for -halfpence is low, and must be dealt with by the police. We know that -when questions connected with life contingencies were first considered, -it was regarded as most deliberate gambling to be in any way concerned -in buying or selling such articles as annuities, or any interests -depending upon them.” The age boasts of an advance in the humanities; -and yet, public opinion permits extravagance and selfishness in the -rich while the poor are starving. Our educated classes, generally, -approve the vivisection of animals. In ancient Egypt it would have -been stigmatized as the most abominable of crimes. - -From age to age, likewise, law represents the code of the dominant or -ruling class--at all times only valid because it is the code of those -in power. How often used by “authority” for selfish purposes, may be -read on every page of history. Monarchy, absolute or limited, is a -synonym for injustice. Feudalism is another term for murder, rapine -and extortion. In Spain, the lands of nobles were long exempted from -direct taxation. For centuries the Hungarian turnpikes were free to the -aristocracy. Prior to the revolution in France, all burdens of state -devolved upon the lower classes. Less than two centuries ago Scotch -lairds exported their peasantry into slavery. Students will recall the -“Black Act” of George I., and the “Inclosure Laws” of England. Until -quite recently, slavery existed in Europe and America; nor has the -institution wholly disappeared from the earth. Legislation is mainly -in the interest of the wealthy and powerful. Congress and legislatures -are making the rich richer, and the poor poorer. Government is -largely devoted to the creation and upholding of corporations, -trusts, monopolies, subsidies and extortionate tariffs. What care the -politicians for manhood? Wealth is their God. - -“Let your rule be the greatest happiness to the greatest number,” -interposes another authority. But are men agreed in their definition -of “greatest happiness?” Different notions of it are entertained in -all ages, amongst every people, by each class. “To the wandering gypsy -a home is tiresome, whilst a Swiss is miserable without one. Progress -is necessary to the Anglo-Saxons; on the other hand, the Esquimaux are -content in their squalid poverty, have no latent wants, and are still -what they were in the days of Tacitus. An Irishman delights in a row, -a Chinaman in ceremonies and pageantry, and the usually apathetic -Javanese gets vociferously enthusiastic over a cock-fight. The heaven -of the Hebrew is a city of gold and precious stones, with an abundance -of corn and wine; that of the Turk, a harem peopled by Houris; that -of the American Indian, a happy hunting-ground; in the Norse paradise -there were to be daily battles, with magical healing of wounds. It was, -seemingly, the opinion of Lycurgus, that perfect physical development -was the chief essential to human felicity; Plotinus, on the contrary, -was so purely ideal in his aspirations as to be ashamed of his body. To -a miserly Elwes, the hoarding of money was the only enjoyment of life; -but the philanthropic Day could find no pleasurable employment, save in -its distribution.” - -Francis, Duke of La Rochefoucault, likened the soul of man unto a -medal, so constructed that it may represent either a saint or a devil. -Montaigne, also, said the soul of man was double-faced; the inner -beamed upon self-love, while the outer wore a mask. Voltaire was a -scoffer: a master of satire, who ridiculed without mercy every human -weakness. In “Zadig” and “Micromegas” he mocked the ignorance and -self-conceit of mankind. His “Memnon,” the “Wise Memnon,” who, in the -morning, foreswore all women, made a vow of temperance, renounced -gaming and quarreling, and determined never to be seen at court, was, -before the night of the same day, cheated and robbed by a female, got -drunk, gamed, quarreled with his most intimate friend, and made a visit -to court, where everyone laughed at him. The moral of “Candide, or -the Optimist,” is, as interpreted by Smollett, that nothing is more -absurd than the exercise of human reason; that nothing is more futile -and frivolous than the cultivation of philosophy; that mankind are -savages, who devour one another. This is cynicism, pure and simple. I -cannot endure a creed so ghastly: a philosophy that suspects Socrates -of incontinence, charges Epicurus with prodigality, accuses Aristotle -of covetousness, and can say of Seneca that “he had but the single -virtue of concealing his vices.” Horace took a more charitable view -of the moral philosophers, and ascribed their weakness to inability -rather than hypocrisy. The poet says that men “upon the stage of -this world are like a company of travelers whom night has surprised -as they are passing through a forest; they walk on, relying upon the -guide, who immediately misleads them through ignorance. All of them -use what care they can to find the beaten path again; everyone takes -a different path, and is in good hopes his is the best; the more they -fill themselves with these vain imaginations the farther they wander; -but though they wander a different way, yet it proceeds from one and -the same cause; ’tis the guide that misled them, and the obscurity of -the night hinders them from recovering the right road.” - -In truth, the mind of man, unaided by Divine light, is not able to -determine what is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. In the realm of -morals, man is to be guided only by the decrees of God, if known. For -those who recognize the Bible as His word, the way is clear. Aside from -this, the path is dark and uncertain. But nowhere in either the Old or -New Testament, is gambling forbidden. Not a word did Moses or Jesus -utter against it, as a general principle, or in any of its particular -forms. What is commanded by God is our only test of right and wrong. -Theology is of man, and yet it is a fact that gambling, in itself, is -not inconsistent with the profession of any creed in Christendom. The -ablest theologian cannot successfully challenge this proposition. - -For the sake of argument, heretofore, I have granted the moral freedom -of man. The fact is, I deny his “liberty,” save in the most restricted -sense. I am convinced every action is determined by the resultant force -of conflicting motives. However, the possible autonomy of man is not -necessary to a consideration of what it is right or best to do. It is -only when we ask about the conduct of man, in his relation to the law, -that it is important to know whether he could have done otherwise. I -reserve the topic for a subsequent chapter. - -Be this as it may, certain conclusions are obvious to the impartial -observer. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to draw a strict -boundary between the virtues and vices. Courage should not be carried -to the point of rashness. Timidity is the abuse of prudence. Generosity -can degenerate into improvidence. Reverence might merge into credulity -and superstition. Arrogance is the extreme of self-respect. Chastity -is overdone by the monastic. Some writers, in fact, deny a fixed line -between the virtuous and vicious passions; this class boldly maintain -a place for both vices and virtues. Hatred may be just and anger -magnificent. Although out of place in a drawing-room, obstinacy is a -virtue on the field of battle. Love is divine and lust monstrous. Are -they not yoke-fellows? Reformers, so called, are impossible without -stupid candor and impassive bluntness. Timidity, on the other hand, is -the defect of a sensitive temperament. Sensuality underlies the domain -of art, painting, sculpture and music. - -This is suggested by Plato in the “Phædrus”--an allegory of the soul, -wherein the spirit of man is depicted as a chariot to which are -attached a white and black horse. The first typifies our higher and the -latter our lower passions. - -Mr. Lecky writes in his “History of Morals,” that in society certain -defects necessarily accompany certain excellencies of character. He -remarks, “Had the Irish peasants been less chaste they would have -been more prosperous.” “Habitual liars and habitual cheats have been -industrious, amiable and prudent.” “Civilization is not favorable to -self-sacrifice, reverence, enthusiasm or chastity.” He declares of the -gambling table, “that it fosters a moral nerve and calmness scarcely -exhibited in equal perfection in any other sphere--a fact which Bret -Harte has finely illustrated in his character of Mr. John Oakhurst, in -the ‘Outcasts of Poker Flat.’” - -This thought is boldly illustrated by Mandeville, in his “Fable of the -Bees:” - - “These were called knaves, but, bar the name, - The grave industrious were the same: - All trades and places knew some cheat, - No calling was without deceit. - - The root of evil, avarice, - That damn’d, ill-natured, baneful vice, - Was slave to prodigality, - _That noble sin_; whilst luxury - Employed a million of the poor, - And odious pride a million more: - Envy, itself, and vanity - Were ministers of industry, - Their darling folly, fickleness, - In diet, furniture and dress, - That strange, ridiculous vice, was made - The very wheel that turned the trade.” - -The author of this unique production announced that his main design -was to indicate the impossibility of enjoying all the most elegant -comforts of life “that are to be met with in an industrious, wealthy -and powerful nation, and at the same time be blessed with all the -virtue and innocence that can be wished for in a golden age; from -thence to expose the folly and unreasonableness of those that, desirous -of being an opulent and flourishing people, are wonderfully greedy -after all the benefits they can receive as such, are yet always -murmuring against those vices and inconveniences, that from the -beginning of the world to the present day, have been inseparable from -all the kingdoms and states that ever were formed for strength, riches -and politeness.” - -“To do this, I first slightly touch upon some of the faults and -corruptions the several professions and callings are generally charged -with. After that I show that those very vices of every particular -person, by skillful management, were made subservient to the grandeur -and worldly happiness of the whole. Lastly, by setting forth what -of necessity must be the consequence of general honesty, virtue, -innocence, content and temperance, I demonstrate that if mankind could -be cured of the failings they are naturally guilty of, they would -cease to be capable of being raised into such vast, potent, and polite -societies, as they have been under the several commonwealths and -monarchies that have flourished since creation.” - -Not yet, then, have we found the human standard by which the gambler is -to be denounced. - -Gamblers are accused of avarice, and an inordinate desire for wealth. -As a rule, the gamester is not penurious. A miserly or covetous grasp -of money is inconsistent with his vocation. Concede the accusation, and -is he alone? Is he more greedy of gain than other men? History refutes -the charge. Money is the god of the world. Get enormous wealth is the -cry, no matter how; no matter how many impoverished widows and squalid -orphans are crying out to heaven, day and night, against you; and such -slavish adulation as the world knows not beside are yours. The passion -for wealth increases gradually, as its end is achieved, the world over. -Its effects are manifest wherever men strive for gold. - - “Gold! gold! gold! gold! - Bright and yellow, hard and cold, - Molten, graven, hammered, rolled; - Heavy to get, and light to hold; - Hoarded, bartered, bought and sold; - Stolen, borrowed, squandered, doled; - Spurned by the young, but hugged by the old - To the very verge of the church-yard mould, - Price of many a crime untold; - Gold! gold! gold! gold!”--_Thomas Hood._ - -The _morale_ of gambling is not to be determined by political economy, -which is not a part of moral philosophy. It is not founded on the -imperations of duty, but upon the adequate footing of desirableness of -self-interest. In the language of Prof. Perry: “One word circumscribes -the field of morals, ought. One word defines the field of economy, -expediency.” So far as it is a science, political economy is cold -and selfish; “budded on monopoly values.” Judged by such a standard, -gambling would be right, if expedient. - -Yes, but is not gambling a destructive luxury? Is it not a wasteful -expenditure of money? I answer, what is luxury, and is it always -an evil? Roscher well says: “The idea conveyed by the word is an -essentially relative one.” Every individual calls all expenditure with -which he chooses to dispense, a luxury. The same is true of every age -and nation. “’Tis a word without any specific idea,” wrote Voltaire, -“much such another expression as when we say Eastern and Western -hemispheres: in fact, there is no such thing as East and West; there is -no fixed point where the earth rises and sets; or, if you will, every -point on it is, at the same time, East and West. It is the same with -regard to luxury; for either there is no such thing, or else it is -in all places alike.... Do we understand by luxury the expense of an -opulent person? Must he, then, live like the poor, he whose profusion, -alone, is sufficient to maintain the poor? Expensiveness should be the -thermometer of a private person’s fortune, as general luxury is the -infallible mark of a powerful and flourishing empire.... Money is made -for circulation. He who hoards it is a bad citizen, and even a bad -economist. It is by dissipating it we render ourselves useful to our -country and ourselves.” David Hume also thought the word of uncertain -signification. He said: “The bound between virtue and vice cannot here -be exactly fixed, more than in other moral subjects. To imagine that -the gratification of any sense, or the indulging of any delicacy, is -of itself a vice, can never enter into a head that is not disordered -by the frenzies of enthusiasm. These indulgences are only vices, -when they are pursued at the expense of some virtue, as liberality -of charity; in like manner as they are follies, when a man ruins his -fortune and reduces himself to want and beggary.” Again, William -Roscher, the political economist, was of opinion that “prodigality is -less odious than avarice; less irreconcilable with certain virtues;” -and that “prodigality, directly or indirectly, increases the demand for -commodities.” We know the Epicureans and Stoics were reproached with -being bad citizens, because their moderation was a hindrance to trade. -Gambling is no more a luxury than many other practices of mankind. Some -persons may prefer it as a pastime to any other form of luxury. Who is -to decide a question of taste and expense but the individual concerned? -One man indulges lavishly in pictures, books, and clothes; another is -prodigal in the matter of tobacco and liquors; a third delights in the -excitement of chance. All these inclinations are luxurious. Which is -preferable to each, is not for society to determine in one case, more -than in the others. In a word, the phases of luxury are so variable and -extensive that it is equally unjust and impracticable for the state to -discriminate unfavorably. - -The gambler is said to be idle and non-productive: that a _quid pro -quo_ is not given for what he receives. What is meant here by idleness -and non-production? Does it signify that _labor_ is the proper basis of -exchangeable value: the _only_ just source of what is called wealth? -If so, the condemnation includes all who obtain wealth without working -for it. Suppose it be admitted that _service_ is the one equitable -title to property. What, then, of _assumed_ rights, in the form of -profits, dividends, rent and interest? If _true_ wealth is the outcome -of physical labor, are not banker, broker, middleman, landlord, -capitalist, gentleman of leisure and gambler on the same footing. - -Bishop Jewel once said: “If I lend £100, and for it covenant to receive -£105, or any other sum greater than was the sum I did lend, this is -that we call usury: such a kind of bargaining as no good man, or godly -man, ever used.” Many contend that interest contributes nothing to -the support of society, but is a tax on labor. Those who receive it -are said to be extortioners who live on the gains of other people. -Christ, Buddha, Zoroaster, and Mahomet all put usury in the category of -forbidden sins. - -It is discountenanced by Ezekiel, Moses, David, Aristotle, Cato, St. -Basil, Masse, Bacon, Buxton, Dr. Wilson and Fenton. Ricardo, the great -economist, was of the opinion that rent is not a creation of wealth, -and adds nothing to the necessaries, conveniences and enjoyments of -society. Adam Smith, the father of political economy, considered rent -as a monopoly price paid for the use of land. Were this true, the owner -of a house, when it had paid for itself, could rightfully charge for -its use, the cost of his labor in transferring it to you, and the -amount of wear and tear. - -It is said of the gambler that he is not a man of equivalents. But, -if wealth is to be a question of exact equality in values and labor, -then must business generally be condemned. The great legists, Pomponius -and Paulus, unblushingly said, that “In buying and selling, a man has -a natural right to purchase for a small price what is really more -valuable, and to sell at a high price what is less valuable, and for -each to overreach the other.” Harsh as this may seem, it but voiced the -principles of trade in every age of the world. “Trade is war,” said the -ancient proverb; “and as a nail between the stone joints, so does sin -stick fast between buying and selling.” Business is advantage-taking -erected into a system. Get as much more than you give as is possible. -A thing is worth what it will bring. You may rightfully take from -another what he is compelled to yield. Exchange is not a rendering of -equivalent for equivalent; but an effort to get the largest possible -amount of another’s property, or services, for the least possible -return. In business, justice and mercy are daily displaced by extortion -and mastership: “the producing classes are vassal to the speculating -classes; the creators of wealth to its stealthy possessors.” - -The Christian Fathers deprecated trade. “To seek to enrich one’s self -is in itself unjust,” said Clement; “since it aims at appropriating -an unfair share of what was intended for the common use of men.” “If -covetousness is removed,” argued Tertullian, “there is no reason for -gain, and, if there is no reason for gain, there is no need of trade.” -Jerome taught that “as the trader did not himself add to the value of -his wares, therefore, if he gained more for them than he paid, his gain -must be another’s loss.” To Augustine, “business in itself is an evil, -for it turns men from seeking true rest, which is God.” Aquinas decided -“that to buy a thing for less, or sell a thing for more than its value -is, in itself, unallowable and unjust.” - -It has been estimated by Bastiat, Karl Marx and Nordau, that laborers -are unjustly deprived of the value of four days labor in each week. -Terrible is the injustice to wage-earners, the world over, if the -deductions of Carpenter and Godwin are to be accepted. “Behold the -hire of the laborers which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and -the cries of them are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.” -Proudhon and Spencer have revealed the “economic’s lies” of modern -society. “The great game of the business world is the game of getting -on,” wrote John Ruskin; “not of everybodies getting on, but of somebody -getting on. What to one family is the game of getting on, to one -thousand families is the game of not getting on. Nay, you say, they -have all their chance. Yes, so has every one in a lottery, but there -must always be the same number of blanks. Ah! but in a lottery it is -not skill and intelligence that take the lead, but blind chance. What -then! do you think the old practice that they should take who have the -power, and they should keep who can, is less iniquitous when the power -has become the power of brains instead of fist?” - -Is this a world of equivalents in labor? What is the ratio of riches -awarded to those who toil? In 1860, the net average income was but -three per cent. Yet, for that year the income of bare money (which -needs no food, clothing or shelter), was all the way from five to -thirty per cent. In England 30,000,000 people are taxed that interest -may be paid to 300,000. In 1870, the interest on the national debts of -the world amounted to $1,700,000,000. This rate in nine years would -absorb a sum equal to the entire property of this country in 1870. We -are informed that trade is annually taxed (interest on capital) about -$200,000,000, for which not one dollar of actual service is rendered. -Is interest on “watered” stock any better than theft? - -A world of equivalents, indeed! In our cities five per cent of the -population own more property than ninety-five per cent; and twenty per -cent of the nation own more than the remaining eighty per cent. At the -present rate of increase, within thirty years, 100,000 persons will own -four-fifths of all the property in the United States. In twenty-five -years the number of our people who own their homes has decreased from -five-eighths to three-eighths. In New York City more than 1,100,000 -persons are dwelling in tenement houses. “In 1889, the farm mortgages -in the western states amounted to _three billion four hundred and -twenty-two million dollars_.” In England, to-day, there are less than -30,000 landed proprietors--one-half of the country is owned by 150 -men. Twelve men own one-half of Scotland. The working classes of the -United Kingdom own but a thirtieth part of the total real and personal -property. - -Strictly considered, two things are said to be equivalent when they -are “equal in value.” Generally speaking, however, interchanges are -seldom, if ever, “alike in worth.” The equality of labor for labor does -not occur once in millions of times. “Value” is an indefinite term. -Into “worth” enters such intangible qualities as whim, caprice, taste, -fancy, ambition, pride, habit, desire, appetite, passion and amusement. -Exact and utilitarian standards would destroy _belle lettres_ and the -fine arts; dissipate recreation and the amenities of life. Are there -precise “work-a-day” equivalents for literature, music, sculpture, -painting; for the opera, the theatre, the salon, the club-room? Gaming -is an amusement for many persons. Thousands enjoy the excitements of -chance. It stimulates their spirits above the cares and drudgery of -existence. Such men prefer a game to either book, piano or cigar. With -them it is not a question of utility but of diversion. Is the value of -entertainment to be measured in muscle or metal? - -Wherein, essentially, does gaming differ from speculation or insurance? -All have their foundation in chance. Contingencies and uncertainties -enter into each as a consideration for investment. A gamester bets upon -the turn of a card, or the cast of a die. The speculator purchases -in anticipation of contingent advance in the price of a commodity. A -corporation indemnifies an individual, conditionally, against possible -death or loss by fire. In neither instance can the result be foretold: -the gamester may or may not win, the speculator may or may not realize -a profit, the assured may or may not forfeit his life policy, or lose -by fire. In every transaction, fortuity is the controlling element; -if for this reason any one is invalid or immoral, so are the others. -Large sums have been won and lost at cards. Many fortunes had their -origin in speculation: also, it has been productive of widespread -disaster, distress and despair. Insurance companies have benefited -thousands of widows and orphans. Innumerable are the families upon whom -indigence has fallen through the forfeiture of policies. Forfeited -premiums to the amount of millions are now invested in palatial -structures throughout the civilized world. Analysis might show in -gaming, speculation and insurance, that at least the equities and -ethics are even. - -View the subject as we may, ye gamester, “where is thine accuser?” To -all men he can say: “He that is without sin among you, let him first -cast a stone.” - -Now, some one may ask: “Is not gambling immoral to the extent it may -induce a reliance upon chance for a livelihood, instead of patient -industry.” I might reply: “What is industry, as known to political -economy; and what proportion of the world’s wealth is a result of -direct personal exertion?” But, generally, men are rational creatures, -and do not depend upon games of chance for a living. The credulous -men are relatively few who rely entirely upon the outcome of chance -in games as a business; and those few are at least on a par in wisdom -and ethics with the millions who gamble in future prices of stocks, -grain, and other commodities. “Ah! but you forget,” rejoins my critic, -“that in other pursuits a man produces something by his industry, or -contributes to that result indirectly, whereas in gambling nothing is -produced.” I consider this erroneous, in the face of social experience, -as has been indicated heretofore. It may be as soundly said, that a -“man has no right to invest his money in cattle, or lands, or bonds, -unless his labor is put in with it. A man buys a horse and hires him to -his neighbor. Is he entitled to the money his horse earns for him? He -invests in bonds at fifty cents on the dollar. Does he not hope they -will appreciate in value, until they are worth dollar for dollar? He -pays $1000 for a piece of land. In two or three years, perhaps, his -neighbors have invested around him, and have improved their properties, -and he finds that his land will sell for $2000. His labor did not -contribute to that result. He risked his capital exactly as he would -have done in a game of chance.” - - - - -The Destinies; - -or, - -The Reign of Law. - -[Illustration] - -CHAPTER III. - -The Destinies; or, The Reign of Law. - - -On one occasion, an aged scholar soliloquized as follows: “Homer was -at the same time beggar and poet: his mouth more often filled with -verses than with bread. Plautus turned a mill that he might live. -Menander, Cratinus and Terrence were drowned; Empedocles lost in the -crater of Mount Etna; Euripides and Heraclitus torn to pieces by dogs; -Hesiod, Archilochus and Ibychus, murdered. Sappho threw herself from -a precipice. Condemned by a tyrant, respectively, Seneca, Lucan, and -Petronius Arbiter, cut their veins and bled to death. Poison terminated -the lives of Socrates, Demosthenes and Lucretius. - -“In Plutarch, we read of ‘two eminent persons, whose names were Attis, -the one a Syrian, the other of Arcadia, both were slain by a wild -boar; of two, whose names were Acteon, one was torn to pieces by his -dog, the other by assassins; of two famous Scipios, one overthrew -the Carthagenians in war, the other totally destroyed them; four of -the most warlike commanders of antiquity had but one eye--Philip, -Antigonous, Hannibal and Sertorius.’ - -“Paul Borghese, a writer of rhythmic verse, died of starvation. Tasso, -himself the most amiable of poets, lived like a pauper, and passed away -in an asylum. Bentivoglio, a creator of classic comedies, in the misery -of his old age, was refused admittance to an hospital he had founded. -Cervantes died of hunger, and Camoens ended his days in an almshouse. -The body of Vaugelas was disposed of to surgeons that his debts might -be paid. Spencer was forsaken and neglected in his old age. Decker, -Cotten, Savage and Lloyd breathed their last in jails. - -“Might not these men have said, ‘Who can shut out fate?’ Were they the -sport of circumstances, or could circumstances have been made their -sport? Was each independent of fatality? Was he free from destiny; or, -was he subject to an unalterable course--an invincible necessity?” - -The query of this venerable sage has been that of civilized man in -every age. Coming into the world with the dawn of philosophy, it will -remain until the veil of Isis is uplifted. Profoundest wisdom has ever -taught the subordination of man to a higher law, by which his career is -largely determined from the beginning. Investigation will disclose that -such, to-day, is the real opinion of a vast majority of mankind. - -The thought was ascendant in the literature and religion of the ancient -Greeks. Their Moira was a personification of law; the Goddess of -Destiny, who assigned to everyone his fate, or “share.” At the birth -of man she spun the thread of his future life, pursued his footsteps, -and directed the consequences of his actions, according to the decrees -of Zeus. By some she was conceived as a fatal divinity, who directed -human affairs in such a manner as to restore the right proportions or -equilibrium, wherever it had been disturbed; who measured out happiness -and unhappiness, and allotted losses and sufferings to him who was -blest with too frequent gifts of Fortune, to the end he might be -humbled into acknowledging the existence of bounds beyond which human -happiness cannot proceed with safety. - -To Homer she was not an absolute sovereign of both heaven and earth, to -whom even the gods must bow; but merely apportioned the fate of men, as -counseled by Deity. In the theology of Hesiod there were three: Clotho, -the spinning fate; Lachesis, who assigned to man his fate; and Atropo, -who decreed a fate that could not be avoided. This conception answered -to the Teutonic Norns, or Weird Sisters. What was to the earlier poets -of Greece a person, Æschylus apprehended as a principle; a law for -both gods and men; an over-ruling, ever-present, inevitable necessity, -against which it is vain to contend, and from which it is hopeless to -escape. “His characters are pre-determined parricides, murderers and -adulterers.” For instance, the destiny of the pious Amphiaraus led him -to that death his wisdom foresaw; fate impelled him to the society his -judgment forbade. Good Eteocles, too, lies under the band of fate, but -seeks not to avert the doom. “Stern, uncompromising, he will meet the -man he must slay, by whom he must himself fall.” The inexorable destiny -of Æschylus was to Sophocles and Plato an ordering of the divine will. - -Two great schools of philosophy divided the educated opinion of classic -Greece and Rome. The tenets of both were fatalistic in tendency. What -was to the Epicurean a “chance” appealed to the Stoic as “law.” Man, -taught Epicurus, is a mere buffet of a blind fatality. The phenomenon -of life, said Stoicism, is governed with iron sway by an imminent -necessity of reason. “Man should be free from passion,” preached -Zeno, “unmoved by joy or grief, and submit without complaint to the -unavoidable power by which all things are governed.” - -Buddhism is the doctrine taught by Gautama, the Hindoo sage, in the -sixth century, B. C.; now the belief of a greater part of central and -eastern Asia and the Indian Islands. In this creed, fatality is a -cardinal principle. Sir Edwin Arnold has designated it “The Light of -Asia.” The great religion of Brahma, also, teaches that everything -is subject to a divinely appointed necessity. It boasts a philosophy -that was the admiration of Bruno, Schelling, Hegel, and Draper. Manes -declared that the moral universe was controlled by two supreme -principles; one the author of all good, the other the author of all -evil. The highest conception of Mohammed is an arbitrary and inexorable -law. In the Koran we read: “No man can anticipate or postpone his end. -Death will overtake us, even in lofty towers. From the beginning, God -hath settled the place in which each man shall die.” The Persian poet -sings: “The destinies ride their horses by night. No man can by flight -escape his fate. Whether asleep in bed or in the storm of battle, the -angel of death will find thee.” “I am convinced,” saith Ali, “that the -affairs of men go by divine decree, and not by our administration.” - -In the philosophy of Solomon, as recorded in Ecclesiastes, we read: -“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is -done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the -sun.... To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose -under the heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to -plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; a time to kill, -and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a -time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones, and -a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to -refrain from embracing; a time to get, and a time to lose; a time to -keep, and a time to cast away; a time to rend, and a time to sew; a -time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time -to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.” - -With Christianity came the dogma of “predestination” and “election.” -This was promulgated, on the very threshold, by Paul, a man of the -sublimest genius; adorable, venerable and heroic. Thus he addressed -the church at Rome: “And we know that all things work together for -good to them that love God,--to them who are the called according to -His purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be -conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be first born among -many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: -and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them -he also glorified. What shall we say to these things? If God be for us, -who can be against us?” - -This idea is necessarily involved in the theology of St. Augustine, who -maintained that “grace is effectual from its nature, absolutely and -morally, not relatively and gradually.” It remained for John Calvin to -erect the assertions of Paul into a cognate and masterly system. He -insisted upon the purpose of God from eternity, respecting all events. - -Briefly, of the religion of the world, to-day, ninety per cent are -predestinarian in theory or practice, consciously or unconsciously. Of -Christendom, those who agree with Arminius are in a small minority, -relatively:--a minority whose creed involves not only the limitation of -divine knowledge, but a paralysis of divine power and the moral chaos -of a universe. That religion is necessarily puerile and unphilosophic -which attempts to reconcile the omnipotence of God with the freedom -of man. Either Nature is ordered for the best--so as to produce the -highest good; or else, everything is purposeless and for the worst. In -a word, either optimism or pessimism must wholly prevail: logically, -a middle ground is impossible. We must choose between Leibnitz or -Schopenhauer. - -Literature and religion aside, the greatest intellects have promulgated -a “philosophy of necessity.” Everything that exists, wrote Oersted in -substance, depends upon the past, prepares the future, and is related -to the whole. “Everything throughout creation is governed by law: -but over most of the tracts that come within the active experience -of mankind, the governing hand is so secret and remote, that until -very large numerical masses are brought under the eye at once, the -controlling power is not detected.” Jonathan Edwards said: “Nothing -comes to pass without a cause. What is self-existent must be from -eternity, and must be unchangeable; but as to all things that begin to -be, they are not self-existent, and therefore must have some foundation -for their existence without themselves.” Spinoza urged that “In no mind -is there an absolute or free volition; but it is determined to choose -this or that by a cause, which likewise has been fixed by another, -and this again by a third, and so on forever.” Emanuel Kant contended -that “every action or phenomenon, so far as it produces an event, is -itself an event or occurrence, which pre-supposes another state wherein -the cause is to be met with; and thus everything that happens is but -a continuation of the series, and no beginning which occurs of itself -is possible; consequently, all the actions of the natural causes, -in the succession, are themselves again effects.” Our own Emerson -asserted the omnipotence and omnipresence of law: “That the wilful and -the fantastic, the low and the lofty, are encircled by a necessity.” -Whatever limits us, we call fate. If we are brute and barbarous, the -fate takes a brute and dreadful shape. If we rise to spiritual culture, -the antagonism takes a spiritual form.... The limitations refine as the -soul purifies, but the ring of necessity is always perched at the top. - -None greater than these may be found in the noble realm of speculative -thought. They are unequalled by few, if any. The whole field of modern -science, also, is in accord with their deductions: Teaching that nature -is an inevitable sequence, and that all phenomena, material and mental, -are linked together by an inevitable connection. In the words of -Herbert Spencer: “Various classes of facts unite to prove that the law -of metamorphosis which holds among the physical forces, holds equally -between them and the mental forces. Those modes of the unknowable -which we call motion, light, heat, chemical affinity, etc., are alike -transferable into each other, and into those modes of the unknowable -which we distinguish as sensation, emotion, and thought; these in their -turns being directly or indirectly re-transferable into the original -shapes.” - -Would you dethrone man, I am asked? No; I surrender to the behests of -philosophy as fortified by the deductions of science. Years ago it was -argued by Comte that, in social order, the higher must subordinate -itself to the lower. That the organic finds itself controlled and -limited by the inorganic world, and man has to work out his destiny in -submission to all the necessities, physical, chemical and vital, which -are pre-supposed in his existence. “The higher,” he continued, “can -overcome the lower only by obedience; if it is to conquer, it must at -least ‘stoop to conquer.’” And as was once stated by Doctor Conolly, -“All the superiority of man, all those faculties which elevate and -dignify him, this reasoning power, this moral sense, these capacities -of happiness, these high aspiring hopes, are felt and enjoyed and -manifested by means of the nervous system. Its injury weakens, its -imperfections limit, its destruction ends them.” - -But, it may be asked, is not this a denial of “free-will?” Yes, as -popularly understood. A “free-will,” in the metaphysical sense, is -impossible. The conception is unknown to the best modern psychology. -The abstract will, of certain metaphysicians, is a phantasm. -Individual volitions, only, come within our actual experience. They -have been generalized, by mental philosophers, into a self-existent, -self-sustaining, and self-procreating entity. However, an abstraction -is not an essence. Such men but tell us what a “free will” should -be; that it exists has never been demonstrated. Again, the phenomenon -“will” is now known to be transmitted from generation to generation. -Heredity teaches that its energy and its weakness are connected -with certain states of the organism. “We can no longer doubt the -transmission takes place by means of the organs, and, in fact, that -the ‘will’ is physiological.” Moreover, in a philosophical sense, the -idea is “at war” with a uniform law of cause and effect. Chance events -are inconceivable in a universe of causation. Freedom of the will, -therefore, is a delusion. For ages men believed that the sun revolved -around the earth, because it seemed to do so. A similar illusion is at -the base of our ethical system, since we enjoy only the appearance of -liberty. “Our apparent freedom consists in the absence of all physical -restraints, and in our power to do as we please; but what we please to -do depends upon our mental constitution and the circumstances in which -we are placed.” The idea was beautifully expressed by Emerson in his -poem “Fate.” - - “Deep in the man sits fast his fate, - To mold his fortune, mean or great: - Unknown to Cromwell as to me - Was Cromwell’s measure or degree; - Unknown to him as to his horse, - If he than his groom be better or worse, - He works, plots, fights in rude affairs, - With Squires, Lords, Kings, his craft compares, - Till late he learned, through doubt and fear, - Broad England harbored not his peer. - Obeying time, the last to own - The genius from its cloudy throne, - _For the prevision is allied_ - Unto the thing so signified; - _Or say, the foresight that awaits, - Is the same genius that creates_.” - -In human history, as in physical nature, therefore, every event is -linked to its antecedent by an unavoidable connection, and such -precedent is connected with an anterior effect; and thus the whole -would form a necessary chain, in which, indeed, each man may play his -part, but can by no means determine what the part shall be. - -The moral actions of men, said Buckle, are the product of their -antecedents. In other words, when an action is performed, it is -performed in consequence of certain motives; those motives are the -results of some antecedents; “therefore, if we were acquainted with -the whole of the antecedents and with all the laws of their movements -we could with certainty foretell the whole of their immediate results. -This great social law is liable to disturbances which trouble its -operation, without affecting its truth.” - -Ergo, given any set of circumstances, and nothing could have happened, -save that which did happen; and under exactly the same conditions, the -conduct of men must ever issue in the same results. The past should -be dismissed without regrets. Our position, at any time, should be -judged as it really is, and not for what we vainly suppose it might -have been; “for nothing is more certain than that we could not have -acted differently in any act of our lives, with the state of mind and -circumstances then existing.” - -Statistics, likewise, are daily making it evident that the same -fixed calculable laws exist in the departments of life and mind as -in physics. “In individual cases, or in a limited circle, apparent -uncertainty may exist. Within a given number of cases, however, and a -large field, invariable results may be looked for.” - -In the 12th annual report of William Farr, Esq., to the Registrar -General of England, we are told “it may be broadly stated that 27 in -1000 men of the population of the age of 20 and under 60, are suffering -from one kind of disease or another; that several are of long duration, -that others are recurrent, and that some are hereditary.” We are -informed in a subsequent report of the Registrar himself, that it seems -to be a “law” one person out of every 45, living at the commencement -of any year, will die within that year. (The entire system of -insurance--life, fire, and marine--is erected on the principle -contended for in this chapter. Not only do a certain relative number of -men die in each class annually, but the law extends to the number of -policies lapsed each year. There seems also to be a periodicity in the -number of fires and marine disasters.) - -According to Porter and Buckle, even “marriage is not determined by -the temper and wishes of the individual, but by large general facts -over which individuals can exercise no authority. It is now known -that marriages bear a fixed and definite relation to the price of -corn.” A century’s experience in England demonstrates that marriages -are regulated by the average earnings of the great mass of people. -Cheapness of provision and not love regulates the number of nuptials. -Combe affirms the same striking coincidence in the ratio of births in -Great Britain. - -Another singular fact has been deduced from the official reports of -England and France. “Even forgetfulness is under a constant law.” -Buckle is an authority for the statement that “year after year, the -same proportion of letter-writers forget to direct their letters, in -some part; so that for each successive period we can actually foretell -the number of persons whose memory will fail them in regard to this -trifling occurrence.” - -By the same witness we prove “the uniform reproduction of crime is -more clearly marked, and more capable of being predicted than are -the physical laws connected with the disease and destruction of our -bodies.” Before this, Combe had observed a similar uniformity, under -similar circumstances, of the recurrence of crimes. He perceived in -human conduct the same striking indications of constancy in results, -as in the prevalence of disease and the endurance of life. Combe said, -in 1854, in writing by way of comment on a certain report to the -House of Commons: “During the five years, ending with the last year -of an execution, there were committed for the crimes enumerated, 7276 -persons, of whom 196 were executed. During the five years immediately -following the last execution, there were committed for the same -offense 7120. Does not this show that these crimes arose from causes -in themselves permanent, and which punishment does not remove?” Rawson -also remarked that the greatest variation which had taken place during -three years, in the proportion of any class of criminals, at the same -period of life, had not exceeded a half per cent. - -And Dr. Brown states (Vol. 8 of the Assurance Magazine), that “in -twenty years, the number of persons accused of various crimes in -France, and registered under their respective ages, scarcely varies -at any age, from year to year, comparing the proportional per cent -under each age with the totals.” M. Quatelet deduced from the -statistical returns of government in the same country, that for 1826, -1827, 1828, 1829 and 1830, in each year, there was one person accused -out of every 4463 inhabitants, and 61 condemned out of every 100 -accused. “In everything which concerns crime,” observed this greatest -of statisticians, “the same numbers re-occur with a constancy which -cannot be mistaken, and that this is the case, even with those crimes -which seem quite independent of human foresight, such, for instance, -as murders, which are generally committed after quarrels arising from -circumstances apparently casual. Nevertheless, we know from experience, -that every year there not only take place the same number of murders, -but even the instruments by which they are committed, are employed in -the same proportion.” Murder, then, “occurs with as much regularity as -the movements of the tides and the rotation of the seasons.” - -“Self-murder,” Buckle observes, “seems to be not only capricious and -uncontrollable, but also very obscure in regard to proof.” Yet, in -different countries, for which we have returns, we find, year by year, -the same proportion of persons putting an end to their own existence. -In London, for example, about 240 persons make away with themselves -every year; the annual suicides oscillating, from the pressure of -temporary causes, between 266, the highest, and 213, the lowest. In -1846, which was the great year of excitement--caused by the railroad -panic--the suicides in London were 266; in 1847 began a slight -improvement, and they fell to 256; in 1848 they were 247; in 1849 they -were 213; in 1850 they were 229. - -In the “Journey through India,” Heber mentions the vain attempt of -the English government to check the frequent suicides by drowning, -committed at Benares; and August Comte has exposed the folly of -thinking that suicide can be diminished by the enactments of law-givers. - -Of this field, Quatelet says, in conclusion: “The possibility of -assigning, beforehand, the number of accused and condemned which should -occur in a country, is calculated to lead to serious reflections, since -it involves the fate of several thousands of human beings, who are -impelled, as it were, by an irresistible necessity, to the bar of the -tribunal, and towards the sentences of condemnation that there await -them. These conclusions flow directly from the principle, already so -often stated in this work, that effects are in proportion to their -causes, and that the effects remain the same, if the causes which -produced them do not vary.” - -Another step is needed to complete our argument in this branch. Actions -are the production of motives. Motives are the effects of determinate -antecedents. Whence these antecedents? They are to be found in the -“Law of Heredity.” Reproduction is governed by law, and “like begets -like.” To quote from Voltaire: “The physical, which is ‘father of the -moral,’ transmits the same character from father to son for ages. The -Appii were ever proud and inflexible; the Catos always austere. The -whole line of the Guises were bold, rash, factious, full of the most -insolent pride and most winning politeness. From Francis de Guise down -to that one who put himself at the head of the people of Naples, they -were all in look, courage and character above ordinary men. I have -seen full length portraits of Francis, of Balafre and his son: they -were all six feet high, and they all possess the same features--the -same audacity on the brow, in the eyes, and in the attitude.” M. Taine -sees in Lord Byron a true descendant of the Berserkers. To Ribot, -the French of the 19th century are the Gauls described by Cæsar and -Strabo. Amphere writes of the character of the Greeks, that it has -not changed; “he has now the same qualities, the same defects as of -old.” The physiology and mentality of parents characterize their -offspring. The human mind is not a blank at birth. Its capabilities and -character are inherited. Every possibility of the soul is innate and -constitutional from the moment of gestation. Such is the verdict of -science substantiated by Ribot, Galton, and Fowler. - -That the peculiar anatomy and physiognomy of races is persistent and -hereditary, must be admitted. The truth is verified by every-day -experience. We see it in the Englishman, the Frenchman, the Spaniard, -and Scandinavian. The intellectual characteristics of a people are -likewise transmitted from generation to generation. The Indian, for -example, is ever wild, free, cunning and revengeful. Negroes, on -the other hand, are generally timid, garrulous, urbane and polite. -The Hebrews, again, are noteworthy for intellectual calibre, the -acquisitive faculty, and a clannish spirit. - -In the family, likewise, likenesses and stature pass from generation -to generation. So, also, of size. Fowler found this exemplified -everywhere. Some of his illustrations were taken from the Websters, -Franklins, and Folgers. Muscular strength is hereditary, as with the -Douglas, Fessenden, and Garrish families. Physical deformities and -excrescences obey this edict of nature; and it includes disease, -insanity, gray hair, premature death, propensities, length of life and -beauty. The truth is overwhelming that mental faculties and qualities -descend from child to child. These sequences in mental phenomena -operate through generations upon caution, self-esteem, firmness, -pride, benevolence, and religious feeling. Talent and ability go by -descent. Even genius, although akin to divine, is transmissible. “Each -generation,” said Galton, “has enormous power over the natural gifts -of those that follow.... The results of an examination into the kindred -of about 400 illustrious men of all periods of history were such, in -my own opinion, as completely to establish the theory that genius was -hereditary.” - -Now for my application. Gambling, in some form, is a propensity of the -general mind: an inclination now hereditary in the race. That such must -be the case is clear from Ribot, Maudsley and Da Gama Machado. “The -dead rule over the living,” writes Spencer. “Past generations exercise -power over present generations, by transmitting their nature, bodily -and mental.” - -The origin and development of gambling were obvious to the eminent -astronomer, Richard A. Proctor. “Beyond doubt,” he said, “the element -of chance which enters into all lives, has had a most potent influence -in moulding the characters of men. If we consider the multitudinous -fancies and superstitions of men like sailors, farmers, and hunters, -whose lives depend more on chance than those of men in some other -employments, and recognize this as the natural effect of the influence -which chance has on their fortunes, we need not consider it strange if -the influence of chance, in moulding the minds and characters of our -ancestors during countless generations, should have produced a very -marked effect on human nature. An immense number of those from whom -I inherit descent must, in the old savage days, have depended almost -wholly upon chance for the very means of subsistence. When, wild in -wood, the savage ran, he ran on speculation. He might, or he might -not, be lucky enough to earn his living on any day, by a successful -chase, or by finding such fruits of the earth as would supply him -with a satisfactory amount of food. He might have much depending on -chances which he could not avoid risking, as the gambler of to-day has -when he ‘sees red’ and stakes his whole fortune on a throw of the -dice or a turn of the cards. We cannot be doubtful about the effects -of such chance influences even on the individual character. Repeated, -generation after generation, they must have tended to fill men with -a gambling spirit, only to be corrected by innumerable generations -of steady labor; and, unfortunately, even in the steadiest work, the -element of chance enters largely enough to render the corrective -influence of such work on the character of the race much slower than it -might otherwise be. Every man who has to work for his living at all, -every man who has to depend in any way, on business for wealth, has to -trust to chance, in many respects. So that all men, in some degree, -more or less, have their characters modified by this peculiarity of -their environment. The inherited tendency of each one of us towards -gambling, in some one or other of its multitudinous forms, is -undoubtedly strengthened in this way.” - -First, we see, it cannot be said that gambling is immoral, sinful, or -irreligious. Second, it is clear the propensity to gamble is as natural -as the temperament or complexion. The law can no more destroy the -natural inclination of the mind, than it can make “one hair white or -black.” If an evil (which in the absolute sense I deny), it is not to -be prevented by legislation. It is no more possible, by direct effort, -to change the gaming proclivity in man than to stem the torrent, or -check the eternal progress of the glacier. The growth of centuries, -down it moves through the years in an irresistible march. Absurd seem -all our demonstrations; how idle, the beating of the air. When one form -passes away another immediately takes its place. Disappearing here, it -appears there. Apparently suppressed in one place it breaks out with -more vigor in another. Continue it will, and continue it must, whether -practiced openly or in secret. If it is not the faro-bank or lottery -it is something worse. If not the gambling-rooms of a Morrissey, a -Daly, a Pendleton or a Hankins, it will be the mammoth palaces (boards -of trade and chambers of commerce, so-called), which now are a feature -of every city in Christendom, and wherein millions upon millions are -wagered annually upon the very bread and meat wherewith our life is -sustained; wherein billions are lost and won, sometimes to the injury -of every department of actual production. There are the open boards of -trade, too, wherein the petty transactions aggregate many millions. I -am told by those who have made it a study for years, that more than -80 per cent of the transactions on the exchange are fictitious: mere -betting on the rise and fall of commodities in price. All authority in -this matter is practically powerless. Inclinations will be satisfied, -and until inclinations change, the demand will be supplied; this, -moreover, in the face of laws however stringent, or police supervision -however effective. Such methods are not only ineffective, but -absolutely injurious to society. No nation or government has succeeded -in restricting, limiting, or curing the gambling spirit and practice. -That this is true, I call upon every candid and fair-minded man of -experience to bear witness. I appeal to lawyers, judges, statesmen, -scientists, philosophers, and the police and municipal authorities -throughout the United States and Europe to corroborate my statement. -The sooner this is generally realized, the better for humanity. What -I have to suggest, instead of the present policy, is reserved for -consideration in another place. I may say here, however, that for the -law to punish what it cannot thereby cure is absurd--absurd as is -every attempt to accomplish the impossible. Systematic education is -the only hope; incessant training the only remedy for appetites and -propensities; either for their correction, restraint, or subversion. -If it had been revealed to man that gambling is a sin, even that -would not vitiate our reasoning in this chapter. God, or absolute -wisdom, should be able to reconcile the existence of an evil with -His own Sovereignty. However, this chapter is not concerned with the -realities of religion, or the true principles of philosophy. As human -conceptions, they have been noted as in accord with the teachings of -science; to show that the human intellect responds intuitively to what -are subsequently known as the laws of nature. - - - - -Legislative Exorcism; - -or, - -The Belief in Word-Magic. - -[Illustration] - -CHAPTER IV. - -Legislative Exorcism; or, The Belief in Word-Magic. - - -For ages, mankind were believers in magic. One of the phases was -Exorcism, or a pretended exercise of supernatural power, through -certain words of magic import. “Healing words,” says Van Helmont, “were -used against the devil and all diseases.” And it is asserted by the -Zendavesta that “many cures are performed by words.” That the magic -power of words was a belief of the Greeks and Romans, is evident from -their literature. Thus it is said of Plotin, that while in Sicily he -cured Porphyrius of a fever, “by wonder-working words.” We are told how -Orpheus’ song calmed the storm, and how Ulysses “stopped the bleeding -of wounds by the use of certain words.” They also tell us, that with -words, Cato cured sprains; Marcus Varrus removed tumors; and Servilius -Novianno restored sight to the eyes. It is gravely stated by Pliny that -Cato did not alone use the words, “motas, daries, dardaries, astaries,” -but likewise a green branch, four or five feet long, which he split in -two, and caused to be held over the injured limb. A similar power was -ascribed to the philosopher, Pythagoras. And if “ye olden chronicle” is -to be credited, the curses of Peter of Amiens and Bernard of Clairvaux, -“produced fearful spasms and sufferings, whilst their blessings -restored speech to the dumb and health to the sick.” - -The belief in magic is not general in our age of the world. It -has gradually retired before the march of reason and the light of -scientific truth. That all nature, organic and inorganic, animate and -inanimate, is subject to a universal law of cause and effect, is now -a truism to every educated person. Science has forever destroyed the -curative influence of phrases. Reason sternly excludes verbal formulæ -from the realm of physical causation. That any mere words may be used -against disease or injury is now denied by enlightened opinion the -world over. In medicine, therefore, Exorcism is a thing of the past. - -One aspect of the superstition still remains, as an obstacle to the -progress of humanity; the possibility of legislating morality into -men. Law-givers still cling to the power of “exorcism” by statute. -Their blind creed is: “beatification and education by law.” “To them, -laws are the cows, whose teats mankind should suck. To them, men are -as dough, which their wisdom would knead.” This adoration of the law -and legislators was systematically inculcated by the 18th century -publicists: Montesquieu, Robespierre, Rousseau, and St. Just. They -seem to teach that “the law cannot come out of us, but must be poured -into us.” But, as Erlanger has said with truth, he who undertakes to -give institutions to a people must feel within himself the capacity -to change human nature, to metamorphose every man, to transmute the -constitution of each individual, to strengthen them; in one word, “he -must take from mankind their own powers, and impart to them a foreign -power.” - -Statesmen should recognize with Carpenter, that “society is the -gigantic growth of centuries, moving on in a resistless and orderly -march, with the precision and fatality of an astronomic orb.” The huge -being marches on with elephantine tread. The liberal sits on its front -and the conservative on its rear; but both are swept along, whether -they will or not, and both are shaken off ere long, inevitably, into -the dust. One reformer shouts “this way,” and another cries “that,” but -down comes the great foot and crushes both, indifferently; the man who -thought he was right, and the man who found he was wrong; crushing, -alike, him who would facilitate, and him who would impede its progress. -At least, it should be kept in mind, “that laws are made by the people, -and not the people by the laws.” Modern society is so burdened by -an enormous and complex overgrowth of law, that the necessity for -its existence is now a prevailing notion, to the end that men may be -kept in order: that, without the oppressive institution, people would -not follow a systematic life. On the other hand, all observation of -civilized races discovers the directly opposite. The instinct of man -is to regularity of life, and law is but a result or expression of -this. “As well attribute the organization of a crab to the influence -of its shell, as ascribe the orderly life of a nation to the action of -its laws.” The law may have a purpose, but to believe it will preserve -order is illusive. This it certainly does not effect, even with all -its machinery of police, courts and prisons. Fichte said: “The object -of all government is to render government superfluous.” The same -idea has been expressed by Whitman and Paine. Moreover, “if external -authority, of any kind, has a final purpose, it must be to establish -and consolidate an internal authority. When this process is complete, -government, in the ordinary sense, is already rendered superfluous.” - -The world has been slow (or loath) to learn the only proper functions -of government. This must be clear to every reader of Bruce Smith, -Lieber and Dick. In the governments of oriental antiquity, political -authority was clothed with a super-eminent and absolute jurisdiction -over the whole life of its subjects; “the manners of their subjects, -their rank, their condition, mode of life, and daily occupations, were -all fixed by the law.” - -And, in the opinion of Grecian philosophers, the state was everything, -the individual nothing. In their judgment, the government should not -permit any individual to waste his power and energy, nor should he be -allowed to misdirect it. They insisted the law must first devise the -model of a perfect citizen; and then, by a system of discipline, mould, -or rather distort, into agreement therewith, the character of every -citizen. The powers of state, therefore, should embrace individual -life in its entirety; from infancy to mature age, “in all conditions -and relations, whether domestic, religious, social, industrial or -political.” - -Such teachings had their illustration in the administration of Greek -governments. In Sparta, for example, under the reign of Lycurgus, -the citizen belonged to the state, rather than to the family. The -individual Athenian did not have a right the Archons were “bound to -respect.” Draco punished even laziness with death, and Solon prohibited -costly sacrifices at funerals. In Greece, Lycurgus seems to have been -the first legislator against luxury. He enacted, for example, that no -Spartan should own a house, or household article, which had been made -with a finer implement than an axe or a saw; and that no cook should -use any other spice than salt and vinegar. Our authorities are Ephorus -and Diogenes Laertius. The sumptuary prohibitions of Solon, according -to Plutarch, were aimed at the female passion for dress, as well as the -pomp of funerals. He likewise placed surveillance over the luxury of -banquets. - -The Dorian races were disposed to austere and rigid habits of life. -A Laconian could not lawfully attend a drinking entertainment. In -Lacedæmonia, frugality and simplicity were the object of the pheiditia. -Gold and silver were interdicted, and their legislation permitted the -use of iron money alone. In Magna Græcia, the Pythagoreans encouraged -the sumptuary policy. Zaleucus, the Locrian legislator, enacted that no -woman should appear in public wearing gold ornaments, or embroidered -apparel, unless her designs were unchaste. - -Roman statesmen were not wiser, in their day, than those of Greece. -From the time of the Kings, they sought by law to regulate luxurious -tendencies. We find it in the law of the Twelve Tables: “Do not carve -the wood which is to serve for a funeral pile. Have no weeping women -to tear their cheeks; no gold, no coronets.” Certain foreign articles -of luxury were prohibited about 189 B. C. An important part of the -legislation of Sulla, Cæsar, Crassus, Antony, Augustus and Tiberius, -related to the expenditures for food, funerals and games of chance. -Says Plutarch: “The Romans thought the liberty ought not to be left -to each private citizen to marry at will, to choose his manner of -life, to make feasts; in short, to follow his desires and his tastes, -without being subject to the judgment and supervision of anyone.” The -Oppian Law forbade matrons to have more than a half-ounce of gold, -to wear garments of diversified color, or to use carriages in Rome. -Following a revolt of the Women, in 195 B. C., this law was abrogated. -Inspired by Cato, the Censor, fourteen years later, the Orchian Law -was promulgated. It limited the table expenses, as did the Fannian Law -twenty years after. The Lex Orchia limited the number of guests to be -present at a feast. The general cost of entertainment was fixed by -the Lex Fannia. A limit of one hundred asses was established for some -festivals, and thirty asses for others. Ordinary entertainments were -restricted to ten asses. The Didian Law extended to all Italy. - -In Greece, sumptuary laws were seldom or never regarded by the people, -who always entered into a tacit and general conspiracy against their -enforcement. Notwithstanding the Roman _notatio censoria_, luxury -continued to increase with the growth of wealth. No law of senate or -emperor could restrain the tendency. “From first to last,” writes -the historian, “all were habitually transgressed.” In the time of -Tertullian they appear to be of the past. - -Instances of like legislation disfigure the statute-books of every -civilized country downward from the fifth century, A. D. All sumptuary -laws, at Rome, were formally repealed by the later emperors; but the -folly thereafter re-appeared when European society began to rally and -segregate under Charlemagne. To illustrate, “in the latter middle -ages, knights were allowed to wear gold, and esquires only silver; the -former damask, the latter satin of taffeta; when the esquires used -damask, velvet was reserved for the knights.” The first legislation -of this character, in the modern world, was enacted by Frederick II., -in Italy; James I., in Aragon; Philip IV., in France; Edward II. and -Edward III., in England. Commencing in France with Charlemagne, it -first became extensive and flourished under Philip IV. and Charles -VI. From Edward III. until the Reformation, it was in great favor in -England. Great was the absurdity to which legislators were carried by -this vain policy. In Scotland, for example, one parliament forbade -ladies to attend church with the face muffled in a veil, and another -fulminated against superfluous banqueting and the inordinate use of -foreign spices; while a Danish law provided that no servant girl should -wear her hair curled. The edicts of Philip IV. related to extravagance -at table and in dress. An edict of Charles V. forbade the use of -long-pointed shoes. Charles VI. allowed no one to exceed a soup and -two dishes at dinner. Later French kings sought to restrict the use of -gold, silver, silks, embroidery, and fine linen. From Blanqui we take a -sample ordinance of the character under consideration. “The said Lord -the King, being duly informed that the great superfluity of meat at -weddings, feasts and banquets, brings about the high price of fowls and -game, wills and decrees that the ordinance on this subject be renewed -and kept; and for the continuance of the same, that those who make such -feasts, as well as the stewards who prepare and conduct them, and the -cooks who serve them, be punished with the penalties hereunto affixed. -That every sort of fowl and game brought to the markets shall be seen -and visited by the poulterer-wardens, in the presence of the officers -of the police and bourgeois clerks to the aforesaid, who shall be -present at the said markets, and shall cause a report to be made to the -police, by the said wardens. The public shall be likewise bound to live -according to the ordinance of the King, without exceeding the limit, -under penalty of such pecuniary fines as are herein set forth against -the inn-keeper, so that neither by private understanding nor common -consent shall the ordinance be violated.” During the same year, another -ordinance provided “that no bourgeois woman shall have a chariot; no -bourgeois man or woman shall wear green, or grey, or ermine, and they -shall dispose of those they have, by a year from Easter next. The -dukes, counts and barons of 6000 livres, in land, or more, may have -four robes a year, and no more, and the women as many. A knight who has -3000 livres, in land, may have three robes a year and no more; and one -of these three robes shall be for summer. At the principal meals of the -day no one shall have but two viands and a pork soup, and let him not -deceive about it. It is ordained that no prelate or baron shall have -a robe for body of more than 25 Tournish sous, a Paris ell.” In 1294 -it was decreed “that every manner of people, who have not an income of -6000 Tournish livres, shall not use, and will not be able to use, any -gold or silver plate for drinking, for eating, or for other use, and -that no person, under penalty of fine and imprisonment, shall practice -any fraud about it.” - -In France, laws of this character disappeared near the end of the 16th -century. Under Louis XV. all such laws were practically a dead letter. -“These ordinances are the history of but yesterday,” says an able and -profound student of French legislation; “but ideas and sentiments have -gone far in advance of facts. We have difficulty in comprehending the -interference of government in the domestic affairs of families, and in -contracts which concern only private individuals. Opinion has undergone -an entire revolution. Sumptuary laws can no longer be proposed. We -need not think the change is due to our wisdom, to our pretended -superiority to the ancients; let us simply recognize that the essential -principle of society has changed; the world moves on another basis.... -In no century were these laws observed to any great extent. Enactments -of this kind were never effectual in France. Since the Revolution, -no sumptuary laws have been enacted, and yet the luxury of attire -which formerly distinguished the nobility has disappeared. A duke -dresses like anybody else, and he would be ridiculed if he sought to -distinguish himself by a manner of dress different from others.” - -It has been observed by one of the great statesmen of England, that -the broad principles of freedom had been early recognized in that -country, and understood by even the citizens of minimum intelligence; -for instance, freedom of locomotion, freedom in the disposition of -property, freedom of opinion in politics and religion. But that -other important features of the same principle were not so quickly -and clearly understood. “I refer,” he continues, “to such matters as -freedom of commercial intercourse and exchange, freedom of contract -in the natural rise and fall of wages and in the condition of labor; -freedom of individual taste and expenditure, in the more private -concerns of life. In many cases, these were matters which affected the -poor and rich alike, but principally the poor, who, in their meagre -parliamentary representation, enjoyed few opportunities for effectual -protest. One can only account for the continuance of those which -materially affected the better classes, who did enjoy representation, -to the fact that, not being familiar with the fundamental economic -laws, which are now so widely understood, they were not prompted to any -practical resistance. It is highly probable, too, that for want of this -knowledge, most people rested satisfied with the vague idea that, in -some way or other, though not very clear, such restrictive legislation -produced some good to somebody.” We pass over those legislative and -executive interferences, which present “every possible contrivance -for hampering the energies of commerce.” Purely economic questions -are not germane to our discussion; such as the numerous and ingenious -restraints upon foreign trade; the attempts to regulate the rate of -wages and the price of food. - -Richard II., Henry IV., and Edward IV. legislated against the liveried -suits of the nobility. This was also prohibited by Henry VII.; and -yet, even under James I., says Hume, “we find ambassadors accompanied -by a suite of 500 or 300 noblemen.” During the reign of Edward III. -it was enacted that no man should be allowed more than two courses at -dinner or supper, or more than two kinds of food in each course. Three -courses were permitted on the festival days of the year. Foreign cloth -was allowed to the royal family alone. Unless a man possessed at least -£100 per annum he was forbidden furs, skins and silks. During the -same reign, another act divided the people of England into classes, -and prescribed the apparel of each. In the social scale it did not go -higher than knights, and minutely regulated the clothing of women and -children. It was repealed the following year. In 1363 it was enacted -that servants should have only one meal a day of flesh or fish. The -statute of 1444 attempted to regulate the price of clothing for each -year: a bailiff, 50_s._; principal servant, 40_s._; ordinary servant, -33_s._ 4_d._ James I., of Scotland, forbade not only “sumptuous -clothing,” but the use of pies and baked meats, to all under the rank -of baron. The Scottish sumptuary law of 1612 was the last in Great -Britain. The English laws were largely repealed during the reign of -James I. A few remained on the statute book as late as 1856. Mr. Froude -has exposed the folly of their existence. - -It has been said of the English laws they “were at all times inspired -by a desire to arrest an irresistible movement, resulting from the very -force of things--from the logical development of human activity. They -were, moreover, powerless, and always evaded by a sort of tacit and -general conspiracy of all the citizens, without anyone being able to -find fault with the principle, without anyone thinking of contesting -the power of the legislator on this point.” - -Roscher remarks: “In Ireland the government had endeavored for a -long time to preserve that country from the ravages of alcohol, by -the imposition of the highest taxes, and the severest penalties for -smuggling. Every workman in an illegal distillery was transported for -seven years, and every town in which such a one was found was subject -to a heavy fine. All in vain. Only numberless acts of violence were now -added to beastly drunkenness.” - -In another place, Roscher continues thus: “Where it has been attempted -to suppress the consumption of popular delicacies, the impossibility of -enforcing sumptuary laws has been most strikingly observed. Thus, in -the 16th century, an effort was made as regards brandy; in the 17th, -as regards tobacco; in the 18th, as regards coffee. The Hessian law -of 1530 provided that only apothecaries should retail brandy. In 1624 -Papal excommunication was fulminated against all who took snuff in -church, and was repeated in 1690. According to a Turkish law of 1610, -all smokers should have their pipes broken against the nose. In 1634 a -Russian law prohibited smoking under penalty of death. In Switzerland, -even in the 17th century, no one could smoke except in secret. In its -native place even coffee had a hard struggle. Prohibited in Turkey in -1633 under pain of death; it was still prohibited in Basel in 1769, -and could be sold by apothecaries only as medicine. In Hanover the -coffee trade was prohibited in 1780. When governments discovered the -fruitlessness of these efforts, they gave up the prohibition of these -luxuries, and instead substituted taxes on them, thus aiming to combine -a moral and a fiscal end. Even Cato took this course. His office of -censor, which united the highest moral superintendence with the highest -financial guidance, must of itself have led him in this direction.” - -Strange it is how slowly men learn by experience. We know of the many -oppressions in England “for opinion’s sake.” History tells us that -the puritan fathers sought “freedom of conscience” in the wilds of -America. Yet, scarcely were the “pilgrims” of New England wonted to a -strange and inhospitable land, than what they required for themselves -was denied to others. In their fanaticism, the “soul liberty” of Roger -Williams was violated in every conceivable way. Personal freedom was -violated to an extent that is now the detestation of right-thinking -persons. Execrable for their tyrannical spirit, are some of the records -of Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, New Haven Colony and Connecticut. The -following extracts are taken from the records of the General Court of -the Colony of Massachusetts Bay: - -“1635: Whereas, complaints hath bene made to this Courte that dyvers -persons, within this jurisdiction, doe usually absent themselves from -Church meetings upon the Lord’s Day, power is therefore given to any -two assistants to heare and sensure, either by fine or imprisonment, -all misdemeanors of that kind, committed by any inhabitant within this -jurisdiction, provided they exceede not the fine of 15 shillings for -any one offense.” - -“1669: Any person or persons that shalle be found smoking tobacco on -the Lord’s Day, going to or coming from the meetings, within two miles -of the meeting house, shall pay 12 pence for every such default to the -colonies’ use.” - -“1692: All and every justices of the peace, constables and tything -men are required to restrain all persons from swimming in the water; -unnecessary and unreasonable walking in the streets or fields in the -toun of Boston, or other places; in the evening preceding the Lord’s -Day, or any other part of the said day or the evening following.” - -“1634: The court, taking into consideration the greate, superfluous and -unnecessary expenses occassioned by some newe and immodest fashions, -as also the ordinary wearing of golde, silver, silke, laces, girdles, -hat-bands, etc., hath, therefore, ordered that noe person, either man -or woman, shall hereafter make or buy any apparell, either woolen, -silke or lynen, with any lace on it, silver, golde, silke or thread, -under the penalty of the forfeiture of such clothes.” - -“1782: Be it enacted that each person, being able of body and mind, not -otherwise necessarily prevented, who shall, for the space of one month -together, absent himself or herself from the public worship of God, on -the Lord’s Day, shall forfeit and pay the sum of ten shillings.” - -In old Connecticut we find legislation similar in character. In 1647: -“Forasmuch, as it is observed that many abuses are crept in and -committed by the frequent taking of tobacco, it is ordered by the -authority of this Court, that no person under the age of 20 years, nor -any other that hath not accustomed himself to the use thereof, shall -take any tobacco until he hath brought a certificate under the hands of -some who are approved for knowledge and skill in physic, that it is -useful to him and that he hath received a license from the Court for -the same.” - -“1643: Whoever shall prophane the Lord’s Day, or any part of it, -by unlawful sport, recreation or otherwise, whether wilfully or in -careless neglect, shall be duly punished by fine, imprisonment, or -corporally, according to the nature and measure of the sin and offense.” - -Here are some of the celebrated New Haven “Blue Laws:” - -“Whoever wears clothes trimmed with golde, silver or bone lace, above -two shillings by the yard, shall be presented to the Grand Jurors, and -the selectmen shall tax the offender at £300 estate.” - -“No one shall read Common Prayer, keep Xmas or Saint’s Days, make -minced pies, dance, play cards, or play on any instrument of music, -except the drum, trumpet and jew’s-harp.” - -“No one shall run on the Sabbath Day, or walk in the Garden or -elsewhere, except reverently to and from meeting.” - -“No one shall travel, cook victuals, make beds, sweep house, cut hair -or shave, on the Sabbath Day.” - -“No woman shall kiss her child on the Sabbath or fasting day.” - -“If any man shall kiss his wife, or any wife her husband, on the Lord’s -Day, the party in fault shall be punished at the discretion of the -Court of Magistrates.” - -“Every man and woman duly, twice a day, upon the first tolling of the -bell, repair into the church to heare divine service upon pain of -losing his or her day’s allowance, for the first omission; for the -second to be whipped, and for the third to be condemned to the galleys -for six months.” - -“If any man, after legall conviction, shall have or worship any other -god but the Lord God, hee shall bee put to death.” - -“If any person turns Quaker, he shall be banished and not suffered to -return, upon the pains of death.” - -“No priest shall abide in this dominion, he shall be banished and -suffer death on his return.” - -“No man shall hold any office who is not sound in the faith.” - -“No food or lodging shall be afforded to a Quaker, Adamite, or other -heretic.” - -“Every man shall have his hair cut round according to a cap.” - -Such are a few of the laws that disgrace the beginning of our national -life. Repealed they never were, save by the scorn of time, or the -revolt of the human heart, as it struggled into a wider and brighter -existence. They were only effective as the expression of a spirit then -prevalent. Forward marched the soul, and behind is left the hideous -husk. Here and there, on the statute-books of certain states, vestiges -may remain of Sabbatarian legislation, but they are a dead letter, to -enforce which is seldom or never attempted. - -Roscher observes, “That the puritanical laws, which some of the states -have passed prohibiting all sales of spirituous liquors, except -for ecclesiastical, medical or chemical purposes, have been found -impossible of enforcement.” Said Dr. Dio Lewis on this subject: “A -very striking illustration of the weakness of law, when it comes in -contact with the instinct of liberty, is the result of prohibition -in Maine. I have taken pains to learn the facts in that state. I -traveled it throughout and conversed with a large number of its leading -citizens, almost exclusively temperance men, and became satisfied -(notwithstanding the prohibitory law), that intemperance is the great -overwhelming curse of the Pine Tree State.” The Doctor then found -fully 300 grog shops in Bangor. He says of Portland, also, the number -of arrests for drunkenness in 1874 was 2011. He is authority for the -statement that, in 1873, the state prison inspectors of Maine reported -the enormous number of 17,808 arrests for drunkenness during that year. - -Hon. James McGinnis, of the St. Louis bar, several years ago, gave -the prohibitory legislation of the whole country (and its practical -workings) an exhaustive consideration in all aspects. The results of -his study, published to the world, revealed the same condition of -affairs in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, -Connecticut, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Ohio, Indiana, Nebraska, -Iowa, and Kansas. On every hand, past and present, he “beheld the -impracticability of prohibition.” “I now appeal,” he says, “to the -fair-minded reader to give his thoughtful attention to the facts and -figures which I have truly and fairly presented, to show that neither -crime, pauperism, intemperance, nor any of the ills which are popularly -supposed to grow out of intemperance, have been at all lessened by -prohibition.” - -The political economists are practically unanimous in their -reprobation of these laws. Adam Smith vigorously protests against -their impertinence and presumption. Of sumptuary laws it has been said -their enforcement is exceedingly difficult, as it is always harder -to superintend consumption than production. “The latter is conducted -in definite localities. The former is carried on in the secrecy of a -thousand homes. Besides, such laws have very often the effect to make -forbidden fruit all the sweeter.” Spite of the penalties attached to -their violation, and of redoubled measures of control, government -after government have been compelled to admit their failure in this -direction. Laws of this nature always involve an abridgement of -individual “liberty,” and of the natural right of every man to do what -he “will” with his own. They involve the assumption, also, that a -government, with the exercise of paternal authority can judge better -than the citizen what will best subserve his or her welfare, in the -use of what they have. “But such action belongs more properly to the -spiritual than to the temporal power. In ancient life, where there -was a confusion of the two powers in the state system, sumptuary -legislation was more natural than in the modern world, where those -powers have been generally, though imperfectly, separated.” - -“I have learned to doubt,” wrote Dr. Dio Lewis, “whether law is very -potent in the cure of moral evil. Force is a good agency in breaking -rocks and subduing wild beasts; but in curing immorality, in which -we strive to regulate the action and reaction of the faculties and -passions of the human soul, force is about as well adapted to our -purpose as a sledge-hammer to regulating a watch. Some people seem to -have the impression that society is restrained from evil by law; that -our wives and daughters are virtuous because there is a law against -prostitution; that our exemplary citizens refrain from profanity and -excess in gaming and drinking because they are forbidden by law; that -somehow society is kept in order by law. - -“It is not denied that Massachusetts has to-day upon her statute-books -other laws involving the same violation of personal liberty as -prohibition; but every law interfering with personal habits and -propensities has no practical vitality. - -“For example, prostitution is an enormous evil; and we have a -severe statute against it; but, as a matter of fact, if a house of -prostitution be conducted in a quiet, unobtrusive way, the authorities -cannot break it up. If any prohibitionist can devise a method by which -the authorities can break up such a house, it would be easy to sell his -discovery to property holders of New York City for a hundred million of -dollars. - -“Scattered throughout this city (Boston) there are unnumbered rooms -over stores, and other places of business, and in private houses, -occupied by persons who are living in the relation of husband and -wife without legal marriage. There are not two punishments for every -hundred thousand violations of the statutes against such intimacies. - -“Gambling is very common in our city. There is a great number of rooms, -or suites of rooms, devoted to this practice. In club houses and many -hotels, gambling may be found every night, and often lasting all night. -Not a fiftieth part of the gambling done in this city takes place -in gambling rooms. Why does it never occur to anybody to attempt to -enforce the law against gambling in our clubs and other private houses; -should they attempt it they would signally fail.” - -Although this was said of New England, it is representative of the -United States and the civilized world. A like picture might be drawn -of every city in our land and throughout Europe. Every candid and -intelligent magistrate, or police official, in the country will admit -that the law never has, and never can, prevent gaming, intemperance -or prostitution. This has been publicly acknowledged by the most -eminent men of affairs in Europe. That it is impossible to suppress or -exterminate the “social evil” has been demonstrated by Acton, Tait, -Parent and Du Chatelet. The latter avows that “licensed houses are the -most judicious and the most consistent with good morals.” The police -establishments of the continent, finding it impossible to prevent -the existence of houses of ill-fame, realized the necessity, not of -authorizing, but of licensing them. The vice is now subject to police -supervision in Paris, Toulon, Lyons, Strasburg, Brest, Hamburg, Berlin, -Vienna, Naples, Brussels, Rheims, Bordeaux, Marseilles, Copenhagen, -Madrid, Malta, Lisbon, Amsterdam and St. Petersburg. A like policy -obtains in Bombay, Hong Kong, Japan, New South Wales and Cape Colony. - -On the contrary, England wages war against prostitution. Is it with -success? No; in this respect her cities are the worst in Europe. In -that country 42,000 illegitimate children were born in 1851. It was -estimated that within the five years preceding, 212,000 females had -strayed from the paths of virtue, and thus taken the first step in -prostitution. In 1832, London had a population of 1,000,000, and her -known prostitutes numbered 10,000. Within her limits were then 3,300 -brothels. At that time, in Liverpool, there were 5,000 fallen women. -Of houses of ill-fame Dublin had 355; Edinburgh, 219; Glasgow, 204; -Liverpool, 770; Manchester, 308; Birmingham, 797; Hull, 175; Leeds, -179; Norwich, 194. In England, in 1865, there were 500,000 prostitutes. -It has been computed that the unfortunates number about 86,000 in the -London of to-day. It is not surprising, then, that the constabulary of -Great Britain are in despair of their power for good over this evil. -“Sooner or later (they realize) the principle of individual liberty -must triumph, and prostitution must become, under the shadow of general -principles, as unrestricted as any other commerce, moral or immoral.” - -In New York City, also, the law has always attempted to repress the -“social evil,” but without avail. This has been openly recognized by -those in authority. In 1875, 1876, and 1877 licensed prostitution -was recommended by a committee of the State Legislature, the Grand -Jury of the City and County of New York, and the Commissioner of -Public Charities and Correction. The committee assumed “that houses -of prostitution must exist;” and its members, therefore, took it upon -themselves “to earnestly recommend to the Legislature the regulating, -or permitting,” or, as they phrased it, “if the word be not deemed -offensive, the licensing of prostitution.” In June, 1876, the Grand -Jury of the Court of General Sessions of the same county and state, -made an official presentment concerning prostitution, in which they -say “that however abhorrent to the views of some, any legislation may -be, which appears to legalize so great an evil, still the fact must -not be lost sight of that it is an evil impossible to suppress, yet -comparatively easy to regulate and circumscribe.” They conclude with -a memorial to the Legislature, “to adopt as early as practicable some -system of laws calculated to confine houses of prostitution, in the -large cities of this state, within certain specified limits, and to -subject them at all times to a careful and vigilant supervision of the -Boards of Health and Police.” - -Punitory laws never have, and never will cure the evils to which -society is liable. “Life is sweet,” some one has said, and yet even -the death penalty does not prevent murder. If the menace of death is -not a deterrent, what can be said for lesser penalties like fines and -imprisonment. That capital punishment is not a preventive of crime -was (upon investigation) the conviction of Bentham, Beccaria, George -Clinton, Lord Brougham, Judge J. W. Edmunds, William H. Seward, Wendell -Phillips, Douglas Jerrold, Cassius M. Clay, Dr. Lushington, Edward -Livingston, Theodore Parker, Vice-President Dallas, DeWitt Clinton, -Victor Hugo, Mittermaier, John Howard, Sir Samuel Romilly, Earl -Russell, Lord Houghton, Lord Osborne, John Bright, Lord Hobart, Lord -Kelly, Frederick Robertson, Prof. Fawcett, Charles Dickens, John Stuart -Mill, Canning, Thomas Jefferson, and hundreds of other able, thoughtful -and conscientious men. Their position was not only grounded on -observation, but fortified by the experience of Tuscany, Spain, Italy, -Switzerland, Bavaria, Belgium, San Marino, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, -Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maine, Vermont, and Rhode Island. -“There is no passion in the mind of man,” said Lord Bacon, “so weak, -but it mates and masters the fear of death; and therefore death is no -such terrible enemy when a man hath so many attendants about him that -can win the combat of him. Revenge triumphs over death; love slights -it; honor aspireth to it; grief fleeth to it; fear occupieth it.” And -if “the fear of the great future,” writes Bovee, “when painted with the -horrors such as only a Milton or a Pollok could depict, produces no -more marked effect on human action; it is hardly reasonable to suppose -that the menace of death by human law, will be very effective in the -repression of crime.” - -The truth is clear to Rev. Octavius B. Frothingham. He declares that -neither crime nor vice can be prevented, remedied, or expelled by force -of law. “Nature will have her way, if not by one channel, then by -another. She will plunge underground, and come up in unexpected spots. -Cunning comes to her assistance. She makes alliance with subterfuge -and deceit. She is sly, swift, ubiquitous. Disappearing in New York, -she turns up in Philadelphia. Expelled from the cities, she takes -refuge in the towns; banished from the towns, she finds coverts in the -cities; hiding in the dens and slums, creeping into the lanes, mingling -with the crowd of harmless things, sheltering herself behind law. -She is a Proteus, able to take on every possible shape of innocence. -Refuse her brandy, she will take opium, morphine, ether, tobacco, -strong coffee, in quantities equivalent to the stimulant desired. You -fancy the community becoming temperate in one respect, and find it -becoming intemperate in another. Opium eaters multiply as dram-drinkers -decrease. The propensity is alive still, and perhaps provoked to -activity by the efforts made to suppress it. The natural appetite being -reinforced by anger, spite, the spirit of resistance to persecution, -which grows dogged and stubborn, fortifying the sense of injustice by -the pride of self-will. - -“As if impatient at the slowness of the converting process, weary of -the task of planting vice out, of choking the weeds of instinct with -the flowers of grace, the church undertook, with violent hand, to -pull up the weeds by main force. Instead of abolishing the hydra by -a beautiful law of evolution, which should create a series of nobler -growths; it undertook to cut off the poisonous heads, one by one. It -took boys and girls, at the tenderest age, out of the world, confined -them in religious houses, refused them the joy of the flesh, and the -joy of the eyes, and the pride of life, barred the gates of every -terrestrial garden, mortified their desires, kept them occupied with -prayers and contemplations, and so tried to starve nature to death. - -“Christianity, was as consistent, tried to repress the disposition -to unbelief, in its opinion the most fruitful source of vice. The -disposition to unbelief was regarded as the deadliest symptom of the -natural, unconverted heart. To counteract it by an opposite disposition -to belief was tedious and difficult, and the method of repression was -resorted to. The civic power was enlisted in the work of exterminating -pernicious error. Tribunals were created, laws were passed, judges -and executioners were appointed, penalties were devised, heretical -schools were broken up, heretical books were burned, heretical teachers -were banished, silenced, incarcerated, consigned to the flames. Whole -provinces were devastated, towns were destroyed, populations turned -adrift to perish; the entire field of unorthodox thought was ploughed -over and sown with salt. And what was the result of the method, carried -out on this vast scale, with full ecclesiastical and civil powers--the -sacred and the secular authorities combining, the sympathy of the -Christian world aiding, no public opinion opposing, the resources -of wealth conspiring with the resources of fanaticism, to make the -policy of suppression effective? The issue is familiar to all who -care to know the truth, from the reports of historians, who have made -it their business to ascertain and tell the facts. They certainly do -not bear out the conclusion that the method of suppression is wise, -or even practical. On the contrary, they suggest the opinion that -it is impractical as it is unwise. The failure of the method was so -disastrous that it quite defeated the ends. - -“If one thing is demonstrated by human history, it is this:--the -attempt to suppress human nature, under any form, so it be nature -that is suppressed, is futile. The old proverbs, which say, ‘Drive -nature out at the door, and she comes in at the window;’ ‘You cannot -expel nature with a fork;’ hold out a truth that is for all time.... -Deeply rooted propensities, habits which have become a second nature, -cannot be thus dealt with. No Hercules’ club will avail to kill the -vital principle that grows venomous heads faster than they can be -bruised. The effort to suppress nature by violent measures, is always -followed, always produces a reaction, that is exactly proportioned in -strength to the effort, and fairly balances it. Healthy progress is -slow, gradual, measured, according to the sure conditions of cause and -effect. It consists of a long line of close sequences, knit together, -not mechanically, like a chain, but organically, like a muscle or a -nerve. Every inch of growth implies a preceding inch of growth; there -is no such thing as jump or leap from point to point. You do not make -the elastic band longer by stretching it; you but loosen the cohesion -of its parts; the strain being relaxed, the band resumes its first -condition; the strain being continued, the band looses its elasticity -and breaks. There is no more power than there is.” - -M. Guizot, statesman and historian, thought it a gross delusion to -believe in the sovereign power of political machinery. Every day -discloses a failure, every day there reappears the belief that it -needs but an act of some legislative body and a corps of officials -to effect any purpose. The faith of mankind is nowhere better seen. -Disappointment has been preached from the first: “Put not thy trust in -legislation.” Yet the trust in legislation seems scarcely diminished. -Is it not time to reject the law as a social panacea? We should now -realize that measures are usually quite different in effect from what -has been expected. It would be difficult to estimate the number of -legislative disappointments in English and American history; “or the -amount of harm which has been inflicted on society by abortive attempts -at statesmanship.” History demonstrates the incapacity of law-givers. -Says Mr. Jensen, “From the statute of Merton (20 Henry III.) to the -end of 1872, there had been passed 18,110 public acts, of which he -estimated that four-fifths had been partially or wholly repealed.” -And Herbert Spencer estimated a few years ago that “in the last three -sessions of the English parliament, there have been totally repealed -650 acts, belonging to the present reign alone.” - -Buckle said, in this connection, every great reform has consisted -“not in doing something new, but in undoing something old. The most -valuable additions made to legislation have been enactments destructive -of preceding legislation, and the best laws which have been passed have -been those by which some former laws were repealed.... We owe no thanks -to law-givers as a class; for, since the most valuable improvements in -legislation are those which subvert preceding legislation, it is clear -that the balance of good cannot be on their side. It is clear that -the progress of civilization cannot be due to those who, on the most -important subjects, have done so much harm that their successors are -considered benefactors, simply because they reverse their policy, and -thus restored affairs to the state in which they would have remained, -if politicians had allowed them to run on in the course which the wants -of society required.” - -In the name of “liberty and equality,” a brave battle has been fought -for individuality. Unjust and unwise interference by the state has -been ably resisted. It is demanded that private judgment be released -from the embrace of authority. The truth is, one man has no natural -right to make laws for another. True, he may repel another, when -his own rights are infringed, but he has no right to govern him. -The individual is sovereign merely over himself, and not over his -fellow-man. - -The greatest minds now insist an individual will more freely act, not -only for the furtherance of personal interests, but also for collective -interests, without being constrained thereto by an external power. -Whenever room is to be made, they say, for the advance of society, -public authority must retire within its narrowest jurisdiction; -yielding, because of its impracticability, all control over concerns -purely personal. “Who remembers having done anything, or having -refrained from doing anything, on account of the statutes? If we could -realize how little civil law contributes to the good conduct and -well-being of society, our interest in legislators would be greatly -lessened. Of the millions upon millions of acts of kindness and justice -which go to make up civilized life, I take it that nine in ten would -not be performed at all, if they were required by law. - -John Stuart Mill has clearly defined the limit of individual -“sovereignty”--as it is termed--and where the authority of society -should begin. “Each will receive its proper share, if each has that -which more particularly concerns it. To individuality should belong the -part of life in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested; -to society, the part which chiefly interests society. - -“The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due -consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating -their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by -opinion, though not by law. As soon as any part of a person’s conduct -affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction -over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not -be promoted by interfering with it, becomes an open one. But there is -no room for entertaining any such question, when a person’s conduct -affects the interest of no person besides himself, or need not affect -them unless they like, all the persons concerned being of full age, -and with the ordinary amount of understanding. In all such cases there -should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand -the consequences.” - -Everybody agrees with this proposition, in the abstract. At this period -of time, nobody would dispute “personal liberty,” as a “glittering -generality.” People are too smart for that. It would be impolite and -unfashionable. They would agree with you, perhaps, that “personal -liberty” is the source of all progress, the lever of all conquests, the -inspiration of all achievements. “The great, vital, pivotal fact of -human life; all progress and all happiness begin and end in personal -freedom.” O yes, they will readily agree with the rhetoric involved. -“The prize, the precious jewel of the ages, is personal liberty. It -has no equivalents. Untold wealth, a mine of diamonds, a palace, are -baubles by the side of personal liberty. We recognize the supreme -importance of this principle. We are willing that all men should be -free--if they will only do what is best for them. We rejoice in the -utmost liberty of opinion and action--if people will only do and say -what is right.” - -Thus is “freedom” trespassed upon, under pretence that is for the -good of the man or men whose rights are violated. Such was probably -the pretext for every tyrannical invasion of popular rights known -to history. Thus was it quaintly put by Dio Lewis: “The Inquisition -believed in the perfect liberty of all men to be Catholics, but if -they caught a man with other notions about salvation, they put a -thumb-screw on him. Our Puritan fathers believed in personal freedom -as no other men ever did. They left their homes, crossed a stormy -ocean, and braved a thousand dangers, that they might be free to -think and say what they pleased. And they were perfectly willing that -all who came along might think and say what they pleased, unless, -as sometimes unfortunately happened, the other men said and thought -things which conflicted with the things which the fathers thought and -said. They sometimes came across a Quaker, whose views did not seem -quite the thing, and they hung him. Our New England fathers believed -in ‘religious liberty.’ Indeed, ‘religious liberty’ was their constant -boast; but if a man did not believe in hell, they would not let him -testify in court.... But our fathers were always very kind about it; -they said he was at liberty, perfect liberty, at any time to believe in -hell, and then he might swear a blue streak.” - -What is really meant by this definition of “personal liberty” is the -absolute right of every individual that every other individual shall -act, in every respect, exactly as he ought; “that whosoever fails -thereof, in the smallest particular, violates my social right and -entitles me to demand of the legislature the removal of the grievance.” -“This doctrine,” continued Mill, “ascribes to all mankind a vested -interest in each other’s moral, intellectual, and physical perfection, -to be defined by each claimant, according to his own standard.” - -Of this class of men Dr. Lewis well said: “They consider themselves -born to control other men. They are ever inquiring, ‘What ought this -man to do?’ and if that man refuses to do it, ‘How can we compel him?’ -They proceed thus: ‘Resolved, That the righteous should govern the -world. Resolved, That we are the righteous.’” - -In what language can I fitly designate a principle of action so -impertinent and presumptious? Who can deny the moral “liberty” of his -fellow creature, as an abstract proposition? Is not the moral equality, -or independence of man one of his essential rights? Neither one, nor -any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another of mature -years, what the latter shall, or shall not do with his life for his -own benefit. “He is most deeply interested in his own well-being; the -interest which another person can have in it is trifling, compared with -that which he himself has.” It is time for society to distinguish, -sharply, between the province of morality and that of legislation. -With the same end in view, perhaps, yet they should differ widely in -extent. Admit that morals and the law have the same center, they have -not the same circumference. There may be a moral guide to the conduct -of an individual, through all the details of life, through all the -relationships of society; but legislation cannot be this, and if it -could, it ought not to exercise a continued and direct interference -with the conduct of men. There are many acts useful to the community -which the legislator ought never to command; so are there many hurtful -acts, which he ought not to forbid. There is certainly a broad -distinction between moral and legal rights. For instance, “a man has -no moral right to hate his wife, but he has a perfect legal right to -hate her. A man has no moral right to foreclose a mortgage on a sick -widow’s home, and turn her and her children out in the snow, but he -has a perfect legal right to do it. A man has no moral right to make a -glutton of himself, destroy his usefulness, and thus throw his wife and -children on the town, but he has a perfect legal right to do it.” A man -has no moral right to drink rum, but he has a perfect legal right to do -so. What actions, then, may be legally punished as offenses? “What a -question,” I hear some one exclaim; “are not all men agreed upon it? Do -you ask us to prove an acknowledged truth.” I answer in words of the -great Jeremy Bentham: “Be it so. But on what is founded that agreement? -Demand of each his reasons. You will find a strange diversity of -interest and principles. You will find it not only among the people, -but among philosophers.... The agreement which you see is founded only -on prejudices; and these prejudices vary, according to the times and -places, according to opinions and customs.... People have always said -that such an action is an offense. Such is the guide of the multitude, -and even of the legislator. But if usage has made innocent actions -crimes; if it makes venial offenses appear heavy, and heavy offences -light; if it has varied everywhere, it is clear that we must subject it -to some rule.” - -Vices are not rightly punishable by law. They are amenable to education -only. Should A. assist B. to indulge in a vice, and A. uses no fraud -or coercion, and B. is _compos mentis_, A. is not guilty of a crime, -in the proper sense. Suppose A. were a cook, who compounds for B. -rich and delicious dishes, and of which B. partakes to such an extent -that he sickens and dies, A. is not guilty of a crime. Neither is B.’s -indulgence in the strong food or strong drink a crime punishable by -law, only a vice amenable to discretion and judgment. - -Correctly considered, then, a crime is an act which one man, with -“malice prepense,” commits upon the person or property of another, -without that other’s consent. Crime may be subject to law. A vice, on -the other hand, is any act or passion in which a person may indulge -himself: malice, hypocrisy, pride, envy, hatred, avarice, ambition, -profanity, falsehood, indolence, cowardice, drunkenness, gluttony, -tyranny, fanaticism, extravagance, etc., etc. Unless this distinction -be recognized by the law, there can be no such thing as individual -right, liberty or property, “no such thing as the right of one man to -the control of his own person and property, and the corresponding and -co-equal right of another man to the control of his own person and -property.” - -An eminent and respected physician once said to an enlightened -audience: “Not a person before me, but has suffered from vices; indeed, -that is what we mean by the imperfection of human nature. When we -depart from perfection it is a vice. Everybody is guilty of vices. -The people before me, forty years old, should not be so old at fifty -or sixty. Their teeth are decayed, and they have imperfect digestion. -They do not enjoy the full and happy play of all their powers and -faculties, and the greater part of this waste comes from vices. There -are certain secret vices which cannot be publicly named, which are -doing more to break down our vital force, make us prematurely old, and -fetter our souls, than all the crimes committed in the country, and the -legislature can do nothing to cure them. - -“Without doubt, gluttony is the most destructive of all our vices. It -obtains among all classes, all ages, and both sexes. Eminent medical -men, in England and America, declare that strong food can count ten -victims, where strong drink counts one. - -“Tobacco is doing more injury to the minds and bodies of our nation -than all the murder, theft, burglary, and arson, and yet the -legislature can do nothing to cure the tobacco curse.” - -Dr. Lewis wisely continues: “It is not often possible to say of those -acts that are called vices, that they are really vices except in -degree. That is, it is difficult to say of any actions, or courses of -action, that are called vices, that they really would have been vices, -if they had stopped short of a certain point. The question of vice -or virtue, therefore, in all such cases, is a question of quantity -and degree, and not of the intrinsic character of any single act, by -itself. This fact adds to the difficulty, not to say the impossibility, -of any one’s--except each individual for himself--drawing any accurate -line, or anything like an accurate line, between virtue and vice; that -is, of telling where virtue ends and vice begins. And this is another -reason why this whole question of virtue and vice should be left for -each person to settle for himself. Vices are usually pleasurable, -at least for the time being, and often do not disclose themselves -as vices, by their effects, until they have been practiced for many -years, or perhaps for a life-time. To many, perhaps most, of those who -practice them, they do not disclose themselves as vices, at all during -life. Virtues, on the other hand, often appear so harsh and rugged, -they require the sacrifice of so much present happiness, at least, and -the results which alone prove them to be virtues, are so often distant -and obscure, in fact so absolutely invisible to the minds of many, -especially of the young, that, from the very nature of things, there -can be no universal or even general knowledge that they are virtues. -In truth, the studies of profound philosophers have been expended--if -not wholly in vain, certainly with very small results--in efforts to -draw the lines between virtues and vices. - -“If then, it be so difficult, so nearly impossible, in most cases, -to determine what is and what is not, vice; and especially if it be -so difficult in nearly all cases to determine where virtue ends and -where vice begins; and if these questions, which no one can really and -truly determine for anybody but himself, are not to be left open and -free for experiment by all, each person is deprived of the highest -of all his rights as a human being; to wit: his right to inquire, -investigate, reason, try experiments, judge and ascertain for himself, -what is, to him, virtue, and what is, to him, vice; in other words, -what, on the whole, conduces to his happiness, and what, on the whole, -tends to his unhappiness. If this great right is not to be left free -and open to all, then each man’s whole right as a reasoning human -being, to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is denied him.” “It -is now obvious, for the reasons already given, that government would -be utterly impracticable, if it were to take cognizance of vices and -punish them as crimes. Every human being has his, or her, vices. Nearly -all men have a great many. And they are of all kinds: physiological, -mental, emotional, religious, social, commercial, industrial, -economical, etc. If government is to take cognizance of any of these -vices, and punish them as crimes, then, to be consistent, it must take -cognizance of all and punish all impartially. The consequences would -be, that everybody would be in prison for his, or her, vices. There -would be no one left to lock the doors upon those within. In fact, -courts enough could not be found to try the offenders, nor prisons -enough built to hold them. All human industry in the acquisition of -knowledge, and even in acquiring the means of subsistence, would be -arrested; we should be all under constant trial or imprisonment for -our vices. But even if it were possible to imprison all the vicious, -our knowledge of human nature tells us that, as a general rule, they -would be far more vicious in prison than they ever have been out of it. -A government that shall punish all vices impartially, is so obviously -an impossibility, that nobody was ever found, or ever will be found, -foolish enough to propose it. The most that any one proposes is, that -government shall punish some one, or, at most a few, of what he esteems -the grossest of them.” - -“But this discrimination is an utterly absurd, illogical and tyrannical -one. What right has any body of men to say, ‘The vices of other men we -will punish, but our own vices nobody shall punish? We will restrain -other men from seeking their own happiness, according to their own -notions of it; but nobody shall restrain us from seeking our own -happiness, according to our notion of it. We will restrain other men -from acquiring any experimental knowledge of what is conducive or -necessary to their own happiness; but nobody shall restrain us from -acquiring an experimental knowledge of what is conducive or necessary -to our own happiness.’ Nobody but knaves and blockheads ever think of -any such absurd assumptions as these. And yet, evidently, it is only -upon such assumptions that anybody can claim the right to punish the -vices of others, and at the same time claim exemption from punishment -for his own. The greatest of all crimes are the wars that are carried -on by governments to plunder, destroy and enslave mankind.” - -It has been asserted that gambling is a vice. I deny that such is the -case. The proposition cannot be established, as an absolute principle. -If a man chooses to risk his money, on a game of cards, he has a -perfect right to do so, in the abstract, and no man, or any body of -men, has a right to forbid him. “It is his money, and he has a right to -do what he chooses with it. He has a legal right to put it in a gun and -shoot it away, or burn it up, or risk it on a game of chance, or make -any other disposition of it, and no man, or body of men, has a right to -interfere.” For my purpose, as a question of law, the real question is -whether a man may dispose of his own as he chooses? If so, then he has -a right to wager it on a game of cards, or at dice; and it is absurd to -treat as criminal another man who may join in with him in gaming, as an -antagonist. In other words, “If John has at any time or in any place, -the right to wager his money on a game of chance, then it is absurd to -treat as criminal the helping John to do what he has a right to do. If -one participant in a transaction is guilty of crime, so is the other. -But if one participant is guiltless, then the other is guiltless.” - -The keepers of gambling resorts are denounced, as though they were -responsible for the gambling propensity in mankind. Now, resorts for -gambling do not cause the passion. It is a tendency to which all men -are prone, more or less. “The essential fact is the existence of this -passion. There can never be any great difficulty in obtaining the means -for its gratification.” If not one way, then in another. If at all, -attack the principle, in whatever guise or by whomsoever practiced. -If some methods are denounced, then should all methods be denounced. -If those who furnish certain “means to the end” are to be punished as -criminals, then should all persons who furnish any “means to the end.” -But to punish any such person is erroneous and very short sighted; -for the primary cause of the trouble, if such it be, is the desire -for gaming. It is impossible to prevent its gratification. As wisely -attempt “to make one’s hair white or black” by virtue of “the statute -in such cases made and provided.” - -Suppose the law efficacious, with what consistency does our -jurisprudence make gambling a crime? In general, at common law, all -games are lawful, unless fraud has been practiced. Each of the parties -must have a right to the money or thing played for. He must give his -free and full consent, and the play must be conducted fairly. The -mutual promises of the parties to the wager are held a sufficient -consideration. A large number of such actions have been sustained by -the courts of England and the United States. - -For example, it was held that a wager of fifty guineas by one of the -litigants that an appeal from a decree of Chancery would be reversed by -the House of Lords, was not, of itself, void, there being no charge of -fraud. So, wagers as to the time when a railroad would be completed; -or, as to the name of a person whom one of the parties had seen; or, -as to the age of one of the parties; or, upon the price of an article -of commerce; or, as to who would die first, of two persons not privy -to the wager; or, as to whether A. would hit a target; or, upon foot -or horse races; were held valid. Indeed, the tendency of the courts -to discourage wagers of every nature is relatively of recent date. In -many of the United States, the doctrine has been abrogated by statute. -Texas, Delaware, California, and some other states still adhere to the -English rule. - -Some of the judgments in England were rendered by the greatest of -judicial minds: Lord Mansfield, Lord Holt, Lord Hardwicke and Lord -Kenyon. In the language of Lord Holt: “When considered in itself, -there is nothing in a wager, contrary to natural equity, and the -contract will be considered as a reciprocal gift, which the parties -make of the thing played for, under certain conditions.” Lord Mansfield -laid it down, that wagers are actionable: “and that the restraints -imposed on certain species, by acts of parliament, are exceptions to -the general rule, and prove it.” And Lord Kenyon declared in Good vs. -Elliott: “Being bound by former decisions, not having the power to -alter the law, not finding any one case against the legality of wagers -in general, and finding cases without number, wherein wagers have -been held to be good, and that the payment of them may be enforced, I -adjudge the wager in the present case good at common law.” It was a -wager that A. had purchased a certain wagon of B. - -The source of our jurisprudence is the common law of England. Gambling -was not a crime under this system, and here it would enforce the -contract of wager. I therefore denounce as incongruous and irrational a -statute which seeks to punish the wagerer as a criminal. - -Crime, at common law is something essential, so, in its very nature; -grounded in the Mosaic decalogue and the reason of things: murder, -mayhem, adultery, robbery, theft, arson. The wager is akin to none of -these, nor does it come within their spirit. The common law branded as -a criminal him only whom God had thus branded. The wagerer was not of -the number. - -In a word, is gambling _malum in se_? In answer, the common conviction -of men has never so regarded it. The common law has ever recognized -a boundary line which separates the _mala in se_ from the _mala -prohibita_. In law, a thing is _malum in se_ when absolutely evil in -itself; “not, indeed, in a philosophical sense,” says the eminent -lawyer, James C. Carter, “but absolutely, according to the universal -conviction, in the political society which so views it; and _mala -prohibita_ are those things, otherwise innocent or indifferent, which -the legislative power, having control over the subject, may declare -to be offenses.” Although not _malum in se_, gambling may be _malum -prohibitum_. If the latter, then it becomes merely a question of public -policy whether or not the state shall license gambling, subject to such -conditions as the police power might impose. At any rate, to the extent -that government is a moral entity, it cannot rightfully punish gambling -as being bad in itself. - - - - -“The King is Dead--Long - -Live the King.” - -[Illustration] - -CHAPTER V. - -“The King is Dead--Long Live the King.” - - -Expressive was the coronation ceremony in the ancient Dukedom of -Carinthia. The ducal candidate, in a peasant’s garb, and with head -proudly erect, walked towards the marble throne of his ancestors. But -upon it was already seated a peasant, attended by the black bull and -the lean horse--those sad and severe symbols of his class. Then was -commenced between them this rude dialogue: - -Peasant:--“Who so proudly dares enter here? Is he a just judge? Has he -the good of the country at heart?” - -Duke:--“He is and he will.” - -Peasant:--“I demand by what right he will force me to quit this place?” - -Duke:--“He will buy it of you for sixty pennies, and the horse and the -bull shall be yours.” - -Nowhere, in the past, was the sovereignty of the people more haughtily -declared, than in this formality of the old Carinthians. “It bears the -seal of remote antiquity--of an Homeric or Biblical simplicity.” That -the people were the only true source of power, was admitted even in -the archaic periods of history. Of olden time, there were many forms -of popular government. Aristotle made a study of their institutions. -Greece had her democracies and Italy a great republic. In Asia, then, -as now, the assertion of political power was the sole foundation for -its maintenance. - -With the development of Christianity, in Europe, was inculcated the -theoretic idea. Kings were anointed and they ruled by “divine right.” -In the language of Mr. Tiedeman: “The king, who in theory obtained his -authority from God, acknowledged no natural rights in the individual. -Individual activity, for its room, depended upon the monarch’s will.” -In time, however, came the Reformation and political revolutions in -England, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Italy. To-day, the “divine -right” of kings is generally repudiated. It has been displaced by the -ancient principle that all power is derived from the people. “The -people were once subjects of the king. The government is now subject -to the people.” “The king is dead,” but his functions yet live in “the -state,” or the people. - -While many ancient statesmen and publicists recognized the proper -origin of power in government, their opinions as to its nature and -extent were neither clear nor sound. Wherever lodged, in their -judgment, power was limitless and irresponsible. Whether exercised by -king or emperor, by an aristocracy or the people, it was absolute. -Politically, in other words, the individual was annihilated by the -state. Government did not permit the existence of any personal right -that it “was bound to respect.” This is also true of later times, in -continental Europe. True, the “divine right” of kings was repudiated, -but not the doctrine of absolutism. “_Vox Populi, Vox Dei_,” became -the general answer to all complaints of the individual against the -encroachments of popular government upon his rights and liberty. In the -name of the people, atrocious crimes were perpetrated by revolutionary -governments. - -In its proper sense, individual liberty is a development of the -Anglo-Saxon institutions. This doctrine is fundamental to the English -Constitution. The principle is cardinal and vital in the American -system of government. Individual rights are protected by constitutional -restrictions upon power, federal and state. In the United States, every -individual is a king. This accords with the so-called _laissez-faire_ -doctrine, of modern development in England and the United States, -which confines the sphere of government within the narrowest limits, -and denies to it the power to do more than provide for public order -and personal security, by the prevention and punishment of crimes and -trespasses. Under the influence of this wholesome principle, with us -and in Great Britain, for one hundred years, the encroachments of -government upon the rights and liberties of the individual have been -comparatively few. - -In other words, it has been generally admitted by the wisest and -broadest statesmanship, that private rights and personal liberty do -not exist by the permission of municipal law. They are natural and -founded upon the law of reason; that, therefore, governmental restraint -should “only go to the limit necessary to a uniform and reasonable -conservation of private rights.” Municipal law protects and develops, -rather than creates private rights and personal liberty. - -In the United States this “limit” has been generally fixed at the -power to enforce the common and civil law maxim, “_sic utere tuo, ut -alieum non lædas_.” The “police power,” it is called, and extends, in -its broadest sense, to the preservation of peace and good order to the -protection of property rights, “and of the lives, limbs, health and -comfort of all persons.” Any law which goes beyond this, in the United -States, at least, and undertakes to abolish rights, the exercise of -which do not infringe upon the rights of others; or limits the exercise -of rights beyond what is necessary for the public welfare and general -security, is not properly within the police power. - -The police power, then, is properly concerned only with crimes and -trespasses. It cannot rightfully invade the realm of ethics, as such. -Crime is theoretically a direct injury to the public, and trespass, -a direct injury to the individual. A vice, on the contrary, is the -inordinate gratification of one’s desires and passions. The primary -damage is to one’s self. In contemplating the nature of a vice, we -are not conscious of a trespass on the rights of others. Vice does -not fall within the police power. Expressed in the language of Mr. -Tiedeman, “the object of police power, is the prevention of crime--the -protection of rights against the assaults of others. The police power -of the government cannot properly be brought into operation for the -purpose of exacting obedience to the rules of morality, and banishing -vice and sin from the world. The moral laws can exact obedience only in -_foro conscientiæ_. The municipal law has only to do with trespasses. -It cannot be called into play in order to save one from the evil -consequences of his own vices, for the violation of a right, by the -action of another, must exist or be threatened, in order to justify the -interference of law.” - -The people of this country are generally convinced of this truth. So -widespread is the conviction that, where a law “does not have for its -object the prevention or punishment of a trespass upon rights, it is -impossible to obtain for it an enthusiastic and unanimous support.” -Besides, it is true of every community, when “public opinion is aroused -to an activity that will enforce a law for the prevention of vice, the -moral force alone will be ample to suppress it.” But it is sometimes -urged that an otherwise ineffectual statute may serve to direct public -opinion in the right direction. To this I reply that one unerring truth -is taught by the history of legislation: “It is the utter futility, in -a corrective sense, of a law whose enactment is not the unavoidable -resultant of the forces then in play in organized society. Nothing so -weakens the reverence for law, and diminishes its effectiveness, as -still-born statutes.” - -Certain matters are generally recognized to be within the police power -of the state. For instance, the control of infectious and contagious -diseases, of the insane, of habitual drunkards, spendthrifts, vagrants -and mendicants. And finally, by forced construction, it has been -extended to the liquor traffic. The law, it is said, may prohibit the -sale of liquor to minors, lunatics, persons intoxicated, confirmed -inebriates, and other persons with certain weaknesses of character. -Courts maintain that while the liquor traffic is subject to the police -power, yet it may not be entirely forbidden as necessarily injurious -to the public in a legal sense. To quote the Supreme Court of Indiana, -in Beabe vs. State: “Where injury does result (from the use of -beverages) it is usually caused by the shortcomings of the purchaser, -without any participation in the wrong of the seller. No business can -be prohibited altogether, unless its prosecution is necessarily and -essentially injurious. It is the abuse and not the use of beverages -that is hurtful. The use of beverages is not necessarily destructive -to the community.... Fire-arms and gunpowder are not manufactured to -shoot innocent persons, but are often so misapplied. Axes and hatchets -are not made and sold to break heads with, but are often used for that -purpose. Yet who has ever contended the manufacture and sale of these -articles should be prohibited as a nuisance. We repeat, the manufacture -and sale of liquors are not necessarily hurtful, and therefore may not -be entirely prohibited.” - -So much for the “police power,” generally considered. But what of its -relation to gambling, if any? If the practice is neither a crime nor -a trespass, then it is not rightfully subject to public regulation. -I have demonstrated to the candid judgment that, of itself, gambling -is not essentially wrong. I insist that, at least, in the absence of -fraud and chicane, it is neither sinful, nor criminal. To gamble with -another is not to assault his person or property by main force. To -wager or bet upon the laws of chance, deceit aside, is not to kill, -maim, rob, or cheat your fellow man; the players freely participate in -the hope of gain or for amusement. Then wherein is the action either -felonious or tortious? Why should the police power interfere? That -it cannot properly do so, under our institutions, is conceded by Mr. -Tiedeman. He is an able and accomplished lawyer, and recognized by the -profession as an authority on the subject. But it may be said, the -effects are injurious, and for that reason the state may forbid the -practice. That gambling is “necessarily and essentially” injurious -to society, I deny. As a pastime, it is innocent, as a principle of -action it permeates the business world. If an amusement, it may be -abused to the detriment of certain individuals, but the abuse of a -thing, innocent in itself, does not make that thing a crime. When an -occupation, it is but natural that the laws of chance should operate -unevenly: to the advantage of some and to the disadvantage of others. -Uniformity of success in affairs is impossible. - -Throughout the business world, in every department of human activity, -the losers but bear a fixed proportion to the winners. Some must fail -that others may succeed. Such is the law of existence, as society is -constituted to-day. We are not now concerned with ideals. The realities -suffice for my purpose. Chance is at present the great motive power -of the world. It sustains hope, and stimulates endeavor. Through its -operation men are enriched and nations aggrandized. That some meet with -disaster and encounter misfortune does not prove that appeals to chance -are criminal in their nature, nor that such appeals are “necessarily -and essentially” injurious to the state. Consistently, therefore, -gambling cannot be forbidden because in its pursuit some persons are -fool-hardy and others unfortunate. - -I may be asked, “What do you suggest?” I would license gambling, and -place it under such restrictions as would tend to lessen its abuse. I -am willing, for practical purposes, to concede this much to the police -power. If this policy may be claimed for the liquor traffic, why not -for gambling also? Is gambling more injurious than intemperance? No, -the victims of alcohol outnumber the unfortunate gamblers a thousand -to one. The habitual use of intoxicants is necessarily and uniformly -injurious to the individual. This is not true of gambling, as a -pastime. The player may win. Some of the players must win. Whatever -can be said against the prohibition of the liquor traffic, applies -with greater force to gambling. If there are reasons why the sale of -intoxicants may be licensed, by the state and municipal authorities, -such reasons serve but to demand a like privilege for gambling. -Briefly, the rule laid down by the Indiana Supreme Court as to the -liquor traffic, in Beabe vs. State, is clearly applicable to games -of chance as a business. This is obvious from the whole tenor of my -discussion. If the state is not willing to take this step, then leave -the matter to “local option.” Leave it to the municipal authorities, -whether gambling is to be permitted or not, in a given locality. Let it -be a question of policy and toleration, if you will. Regulations may -be imposed, as with the saloon. Recognize the existence of gambling -as a fixed fact, but interpose a surveillance for the prevention of -fraud. As with the saloon, also, provide for the protection of those -weaklings who are ever wards of the law: “minors, drunkards, lunatics -and spendthrifts.” This policy now obtains generally on the continent -of Europe, and to a certain extent in several of the United States: -notably, Arkansas, Texas and California. - -“What! would you have gambling public?” Yes, rather than private; -and that is the alternative presented to the wise. The experience -of California, in this matter, is that of every state in the Union, -and all may profit by her example. In the words of Judge Murray of -that state: “The Legislature, finding a thirst for play universally -prevalent throughout the state, and despairing of suppressing it -entirely, attempted to control it in certain bounds, by imposing -restrictions and burdens on this kind of business. The license operated -as a permission, and removed, or did away with the misdemeanor as it -existed.” The issue for practical men is: Shall gambling be in sight -and subject to control, or shall it be out of sight and beyond control. -The “situs” of public gambling is known to the authorities, and thus -may its conduct be supervised and regulated: its every operation may be -hourly inspected by the police, to the exclusion of those whom the law -may with propriety protect from their own acts, and the prevention of -cheating by dishonorable methods and devices. If gambling is public, -in brief, its abuses can be reduced to a minimum. When repressed -at known points, gambling is not thereby discontinued. It is thus -distributed over a wider field, there, secretly to thrive in its worst -features. Then it is that fraud and theft are triumphant: that “brace” -gamblers “wax fat” and their conscienceless harpies pray in secret upon -the unwary and the inexperienced. Public gambling is generally fair and -honest. Secret gambling is too often but another name for a robbery -that cannot be prevented by either police or magistrates. Again, the -number of employees are few, comparatively, in the public gambling -club, and it is without other allurements than naked chance may offer. -Not so the private institution, the patrons of which may freely partake -of most seductive viands and expensive liquors; rents are also higher, -and more employees are required. The private club is costly in the -extreme: an extravagant scale is necessary to its very existence. -This is a severe test to the scruples of a proprietor. In some way he -must meet expenses and insure a livelihood. For an honest gambler the -maintenance of a private club is seldom possible. - -“But public gambling would be a temptation to the poor man. You admit -that poor men should not gamble?” I answer, who is the “poor” man? -When you have found him, who is his keeper? Are you the custodian of -his judgment and inclinations? I am of opinion he would repudiate your -guardianship with indignation. “Consistency thou art,” indeed, “a -jewel.” The rich and well-to-do may gamble, perhaps, but not the man -of small resources. I ask, who has the right, for that reason, to say -the latter nay? Not you, rich gambler in stocks and farm products; nor -you, sir, who nightly gamble in the parlor of a comfortable home, or -at the private club you assist in maintaining for that purpose. By what -authority were you constituted the keeper of a less fortunate neighbor? -All this aside, however, the suppression of public gambling will not -deter any man from the pursuit, whether “rich” or “poor.” A thousand -avenues are opened to him, despite the law and the authorities. In this -matter, society must trust to the education of individual character and -the gradual amelioration of mankind. Besides, if gambling were subject -to regulation, as other pursuits, our laws could the better protect -whomsoever it might desire. - - - - -Transcriber’s Notes - - -Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a -predominant preference was found in the original book; otherwise they -were not changed. - -Simple typographical errors were corrected. - -Unbalanced quotation marks were remedied when the change was obvious or -the quotation was found in other sources. The others remain unbalanced. - -The illustration on the Title page is a decorative floral; the other -illustrations are decorative headpieces. - -Page 109: “the band of fate” was printed that way. - -Page 187: Opening quotation mark has no matching closing mark. - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Gambling, by James Harold Romain - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GAMBLING *** - -***** This file should be named 60005-0.txt or 60005-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/0/0/0/60005/ - -Produced by Turgut Dincer, Charlie Howard, and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -file was produced from images generously made available -by The Internet Archive) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |