diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/60005-h/60005-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/60005-h/60005-h.htm | 5885 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 5885 deletions
diff --git a/old/60005-h/60005-h.htm b/old/60005-h/60005-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 3cf6e9f..0000000 --- a/old/60005-h/60005-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,5885 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - The Project Gutenberg eBook of Gambling, by James Harold Romain. - </title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - -body { - margin-left: 2.5em; - margin-right: 2.5em; -} - -h2 { - text-align: center; - clear: both; - margin-top: 2.5em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - font-size: 175%; -} - -h1 { - line-height: 1.3; - text-align: left; - margin: 4em auto 2em 1.2em; - text-indent: -1.2em; - padding-left: 1em; - font-weight: normal; - font-size: 250%; - word-spacing: .3em; -} - -h2+p {margin-top: 1.5em;} - -p.chaphead { - text-indent: 0; - margin: 2em auto 1em auto; - text-align: center; - font-size: 133%; -} - -h2 .subhead, p.chaphead .subhead { - display: block; - margin-top: .5em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - font-weight: bold; -} - -.transnote h2 { - margin-top: .5em; - margin-bottom: 1em; -} - -.subhead { - text-indent: 0; - text-align: center; - font-size: smaller; -} - -p { - text-indent: 1.75em; - margin-top: .51em; - margin-bottom: .24em; - text-align: justify; -} -.caption p {text-align: center; text-indent: 0;} -p.center {text-indent: 0;} - -.p1 {margin-top: 1em;} -.p2 {margin-top: 2em;} -.p4 {margin-top: 4em;} -.vspace {line-height: 1.5;} - -.in0 {text-indent: 0;} - -.small {font-size: 70%;} -.smaller {font-size: 85%;} -.larger {font-size: 125%;} -.xxlarge {font-size: 200%;} - -p.drop-cap {text-indent: 0; margin-bottom: 1.1em;} -p.drop-cap:first-letter { - float: left; - margin: .05em .25em 0 0; - font-size: 300%; - line-height:0.7em; - text-indent: 0; - clear: both; -} -p.drop-cap.a .smcap1 {margin-left: -.75em;} -p.drop-cap .smcap1 {margin-left: -.7em;} -p.drop-cap.b .smcap1 {margin-left: -.9em;} -p.drop-cap.x .smcap1 {margin-left: -.8em;} -p .smcap1 {font-size: 125%;} -.smcap1 {text-transform: uppercase;} - -.center {text-align: center;} - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} -.smcap.smaller {font-size: 75%;} - -.bold {font-weight: bold;} - -hr { - width: 33%; - margin-top: 4em; - margin-bottom: 4em; - margin-left: 33%; - margin-right: auto; - clear: both; -} - -.tb { - text-align: center; - padding-top: .76em; - padding-bottom: .24em; - letter-spacing: 1.5em; - margin-right: -1.5em; -} - -table { - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; - max-width: 80%; - border-collapse: collapse; -} - -td {padding-bottom: 1em;} -.small td {padding-bottom: .1em;} - -.tdl { - text-align: left; - vertical-align: top; - padding-right: 1em; - padding-left: 1.5em; - text-indent: -1.5em; -} - -.tdr { - text-align: right; - vertical-align: bottom; - padding-left: .3em; - white-space: nowrap; -} - -.pagenum { - position: absolute; - right: 4px; - text-indent: 0em; - text-align: right; - font-size: 70%; - font-weight: normal; - font-variant: normal; - font-style: normal; - letter-spacing: normal; - line-height: normal; - color: #acacac; - border: 1px solid #acacac; - background: #ffffff; - padding: 1px 2px; -} -.figcenter { - margin: 2em auto 2em auto; - text-align: center; - page-break-inside: avoid; - max-width: 100%; -} - -img { - padding: 2em 0 2em 0; - max-width: 100%; - height: auto; -} - -.poem-container { - text-align: center; - font-size: 98%; -} - -.poem { - display: inline-block; - text-align: left; - margin-left: 0; -} - -.poem br {display: none;} - -.poem .stanza{padding: 0.5em 0;} - -.poem span.iq {display: block; margin-left: -.5em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} -.poem span.i0 {display: block; margin-left: 0em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} -.poem span.i18 {display: block; margin-left: 7em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} - -.transnote { - background-color: #999999; - border: thin dotted; - font-family: sans-serif, serif; - margin-left: 5%; - margin-right: 5%; - margin-top: 4em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - padding: 1em; -} - -.sigright { - margin-right: 2em; - text-align: right;} - -.wspace {word-spacing: .3em;} - -@media print, handheld -{ - h1, .chapter, .newpage {page-break-before: always;} - h1.nobreak, h2.nobreak, .nobreak {page-break-before: avoid; padding-top: 0;} - h2 {margin-top: 1em;} - - p { - margin-top: .5em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .25em; - } - - table {width: 100%; max-width: 100%;} - - .tdl { - padding-left: 1em; - text-indent: -1em; - padding-right: 0; - } - - p.drop-cap {text-indent: 1.75em; margin-bottom: .24em;} - p.drop-cap:first-letter { - float: none; - font-size: 100%; - margin-left: 0; - margin-right: 0; - text-indent: 1.75em; - } - - p.drop-cap.i .smcap1, p.drop-cap.a .smcap1, p.drop-cap .smcap1, - p.drop-cap.b .smcap1, p.drop-cap.x .smcap1 {margin-left: 0;} - p .smcap1 {font-size: 100%;} - -} - -@media handheld -{ - body {margin: 0;} - - hr { - margin-top: .1em; - margin-bottom: .1em; - visibility: hidden; - color: white; - width: .01em; - display: none; - } - - .poem-container {text-align: left; margin-left: 5%;} - .poem {display: block;} - .poem .stanza {page-break-inside: avoid;} - - .transnote { - page-break-inside: avoid; - margin-left: 2%; - margin-right: 2%; - margin-top: 1em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - padding: .5em; - } - -} - </style> - </head> - -<body> - - -<pre> - -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) - - - - - - -</pre> - - -<h1> -<span class="xxlarge">Gambling:</span><br /> - -<span class="subhead">Or, Fortuna, her Temple and<br /> -Shrine. The True Philosophy<br /> -and Ethics of Gambling. By<br /> -James Harold Romain.</span></h1> - -<div id="if_i_p000" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 5em;"> - <img src="images/i_p000.jpg" width="65" height="62" alt="" /></div> - -<p class="p2 center vspace wspace">CHICAGO:<br /> -<span class="smcap">The Craig Press.</span><br /> -1891 -</p> - -<hr /> - -<p class="newpage p4 center smaller"> -COPYRIGHT, 1891.<br /><br /> -JAMES HAROLD ROMAIN.</p> - -<hr /> - - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">3</span></p> -<h2 id="Publishers_Note">Publisher’s Note to the Public.</h2> -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -<span class="smcap">Adam Craig</span>, Publisher.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">5</span></p> -<p class="newpage p4 center vspace wspace larger bold"> -This book is dedicated<br /> -To the<br /> -<span class="larger">Hon. John Cameron Simonds,</span><br /> -by the author,<br /> -as a token of esteem for his<br /> -fair-mindedness and sense of justice.<br /> -Although that gentleman is not a gamester,<br /> -nor in sympathy with the pursuit,<br /> -yet the author desires thus to acknowledge his<br /> -indebtedness to him for many valuable suggestions<br /> -in the preparation of this work. -</p> - -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">7</span></p> - -<div id="ip_7" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 42em;"> - <img src="images/i_p007.jpg" width="666" height="255" alt="" /></div> - -<h2 id="PREFACE" class="nobreak">PREFACE.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="drop-cap"><span class="smcap1">Two</span> 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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">8</span> -Low were bowed their crested helms in -courtly salutations.</p> - -<p>“Comely, Sir Knight,” said one, “comely -and noble is this figure.”</p> - -<p>“Yea, thou hast spoken truly,” was the -reply.</p> - -<p>“Precious, very precious,” rejoined the -first, “must be yon golden targe.”</p> - -<p>“Nay, Sir Knight, it is of silver, I trow.”</p> - -<p>“By my lady, thou liest,” quickly came -the hot retort.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Not so, it is evident, has it been with -books heretofore devoted to a discussion of -gambling. Their authors professed an exposition<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">9</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">10</span> -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.</p> - -<div class="poem-container"> -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="iq">“Whose powers at once combat ye, and control,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Whose magic bondage each lost slave enjoys.”<br /></span> -</div></div> -</div> - -<p>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:</p> - -<div class="poem-container"> -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="iq">“Wisdom from heaven received her birth;<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Her beams transmitted to the subject Earth.”<br /></span> -</div></div> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">11</span> -And yet</p> - -<div class="poem-container"> -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="iq">“This great empress of the human soul<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Does only with imagined power control,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">If restless passion, by rebellious sway,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Compels the weak usurper to obey.”<br /></span> -</div></div> -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">per se</i>: -i.e., absolutely vicious? Where in human<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">12</span> -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?</p> - -<p>Such were the problems that confronted<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">13</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">17</span></p> -<h2 id="CONTENTS">CONTENTS.</h2> -</div> - -<table id="toc" summary="Contents"> - <tr class="small"> - <td> </td> - <td class="tdr">Page</td></tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Publisher’s Note</span>,</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_3">3</a></td></tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Dedication</span>,</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_5">5</a></td></tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Preface</span>,</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_7">7</a></td></tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Introduction</span>,</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_19">19</a></td></tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Worship of Fortuna</span>,</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_27">27</a></td></tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">What is Truth; or, The Philosopher’s Stone?</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_46">46</a></td></tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Destinies; or, The Reign of Law</span>,</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_103">103</a></td></tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Legislative Exorcism; or, The Belief in Word-Magic</span>,</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_139">139</a></td></tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">“The King is Dead—Long Live the King!”</span>,</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_211">211</a></td></tr> -</table> - -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">19</span></p> - -<h2 id="Introduction">Introduction.</h2> - -<div id="ip_19" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 41em;"> - <img src="images/i_p021.jpg" width="649" height="152" alt="" /></div> - -<p class="chaphead">INTRODUCTION.</p> -</div> - -<p class="drop-cap a"><span class="smcap1">A traveler</span> 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:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">22</span> -<i>First.</i>—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.</p> - -<p><i>Second.</i>—To define a wager is to defy intolerance -of opinion. Truth is not absolute but -relative. It is not to be established <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">ex cathedra</i>. -Moralists are not in a position to denounce -gambling <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">per se</i>. They are not yet -agreed upon the unconditioned principles of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">23</span> -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.</p> - -<p><i>Third.</i>—Man is the creature of circumstances. -Society is an organism conditioned -by its environments. Every nation must complete<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">24</span> -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. <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">Ergo</i>: in the -future, as in the past and present, the -gaming passion will everywhere assert itself,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">25</span> -despite repressive legislation, however -severe.</p> - -<p><i>Fourth.</i>—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. <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">Per se</i>, to gamble is neither a -sin nor a crime. For the law to punish the -practice is futile and unwarranted.</p> - -<p><i>Conclusion.</i>—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.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">27</span></p> -<h2 id="The_Worship_of_Fortuna">The Worship of Fortuna.</h2> - -<div id="ip_29" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 42em;"> - <img src="images/i_p029.jpg" width="668" height="240" alt="" /></div> - -<p class="chaphead">CHAPTER I.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">The Worship of Fortuna.</span></p> -</div> - -<p class="drop-cap b"><span class="smcap1">Reader,</span> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">30</span> -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.</p> - -<p>Præneste flourished before the birth of -Christ or the glory of Rome. The noble -city occupied a projecting point or spur of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">31</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">32</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>“Sylla,” he continues, “on the contrary, -not only accepted the credit of such divine<span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">33</span> -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.’”</p> - -<p>The Goddess of Chance, or Good Luck, -actually existed in the imagination of the -ancients. Chapman writes:</p> - -<div class="poem-container"> -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="i18">“The old Scythians<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Painted blind Fortune’s powerful hands with wings,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">To show, her gifts come swiftly and suddenly,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Which, if her favorites be not swift to take,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">He loses them forever.”<br /></span> -</div></div> -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">34</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">35</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">36</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">37</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">38</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">39</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">40</span> -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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">41</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">42</span> -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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">43</span> -in letters perspicuous, vivacious, and -graceful; Halifax,</p> - -<div class="poem-container"> -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="iq">“Jotham of piercing wit and pregnant truth,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Endued by nature and by learning taught<br /></span> -<span class="i0">To move assemblies;”<br /></span> -</div></div> -</div> - -<p class="in0">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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">44</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">45</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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?”</p> - -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">46</span></p> -<h2 id="What_is_Truth">What is Truth?<br /> - -<span class="smaller">or,</span><br /> - -<span class="subhead">The Philosopher’s Stone.</span></h2> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">49</span></p> - -<div id="ip_49" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 43em;"> - <img src="images/i_p049.jpg" width="673" height="295" alt="" /></div> - -<p class="chaphead">CHAPTER II.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">What is Truth; or, the Philosopher’s Stone?</span></p> -</div> - -<p class="drop-cap"><span class="smcap1">In</span> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">50</span> -accurate illustrations of the definition which -describes Alchemy as an Art without principle, -which begins in falsehood, proceeds in -labor, and ends in beggary.”</p> - -<p>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 <em>necessary</em> moral truth. We seek <em>immutable</em> -righteousness.” Long ago was Alchemy<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">51</span> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">52</span> -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 “<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">ipse dixitism</i>: -as a fraud by which incompetent philosophers -would palm their own tastes and fancies upon -mankind.” “One man,” wrote Bentham of -Shaftesbury, “says <em>he</em> has a thing made on -purpose to tell <em>him</em> what is right and what -is wrong; and that it is called <em>moral sense</em>: -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 <em>my</em> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">53</span> -years to acquire; to learn of himself what -others are contented to get by means of -instruction.”</p> - -<p>Archdeacon Paley, again, ridiculed as -worthless a “moral sense” which man may -disregard if he chooses. What is an <em>authority</em>, -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, <em>is</em> my conscience, and <em>why</em> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">54</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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?”</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">55</span> -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, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">per se</i>. If you find this -impossible, I am free to repudiate your dogmatism. -To know, also, that gaming is -not <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">prima facie</i> sinful, we have but to define -it.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">56</span> -This would imply that it is immoral to invoke -a fortuity. Is it?</p> - -<p>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 <em>why</em> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">57</span> -do not risk a loss for the chance of some -gain.”</p> - -<p>In “Paradise Lost,” Milton declares:</p> - -<div class="poem-container"> -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="iq">“Next him, high arbiter,<br /></span> -<span class="i0"><em>Chance</em> governs all!”<br /></span> -</div></div> -</div> - -<p class="in0">And of mankind we read in Ecclesiastes that -“time and <em>chance</em> 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 <em>cast lots</em> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">58</span> -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.)</p> - -<p><em>Thus was chance invested with the sanctity -of a religious observance.</em></p> - -<p>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.)</p> - -<p><em>Luck, then, decided the tenure of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">59</span> -tribes in Canaan—a title dictated by Divinity.</em></p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.)</p> - -<p><em>By lot, likewise, the question of “ministry<span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">60</span> -and apostleship” was decided against Justus -and in favor of Matthias.</em> (Acts 1:26.)</p> - -<p>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,</p> - -<div class="poem-container"> -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="iq">“All human business, fortune doth command,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Without all order, and with her blind hand,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">She, blind, bestows blind gifts, that still have nurst,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">They see not who nor how.”<br /></span> -</div></div> -</div> - -<p class="in0">The politician, too, might say with Macbeth: -“If chance will have me king, why, chance -may crown me.” War is a mighty game<span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">61</span> -between giants. In truth, of Napoleon the -poet has said:</p> - -<div class="poem-container"> -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="iq">“Whose game was empires, and whose stakes were thrones,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Whose table, earth; whose dice, were human bones.”<br /></span> -</div></div> -</div> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">62</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">63</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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. <em>Is it not lawful for me<span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">64</span> -to do what I will with mine own?</em>” (Matt. -20:13, 14, 15.)</p> - -<p>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 <em>somewhere</em>, 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.”</p> - -<p>No intelligent gambler is a believer in -“luck” as <em>a personal quality</em>. He recognizes -the phenomena of chance. <em>How</em> they will<span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">65</span> -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.</p> - -<p>But seriously, for what do these aspirants -contend? A method of reasoning from the -happening of an event to the <em>probabilities</em> 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 <em>hypothesis</em> presenting -the necessity of one or another out of -a certain number of consequences. In other -words, <em>given</em> an event as having happened, -and which <em>might</em> have been the consequence -of either of several causes, or explicable by -either of several <em>hypotheses</em>, the probabilities -can be <em>inferred</em>.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">66</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">67</span> -would not perform this feat. That gentleman -threw seven <em>nine times</em> running.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Another class of moralizers reject and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_68">68</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">69</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">70</span> -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 <em>essentially</em> -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?</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_71">71</span> -was burned as a heretic, now he is the hero -of philosophy and science.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_72">72</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_73">73</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The splendid ideal of our century is the -monogamic state—“the great theme of -romantic literature, and the climax of a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_74">74</span> -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.</p> - -<p>Suicide was not thought unworthy by the -ancients. It was resorted to by Anthony, -Brutus, Cassius, Cato, and Zeno. To-day,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_75">75</span> -the attempt is a crime, and its consummation -a disgrace. In Europe and America it is -<i xml:lang="es" lang="es">felo-de-se</i>. 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_76">76</span> -of animals. In ancient Egypt it would -have been stigmatized as the most abominable -of crimes.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_77">77</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_78">78</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_79">79</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_80">80</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>In truth, the mind of man, unaided by<span class="pagenum" id="Page_81">81</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_82">82</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_83">83</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_84">84</span> -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.’”</p> - -<p>This thought is boldly illustrated by -Mandeville, in his “Fable of the Bees:”</p> - -<div class="poem-container"> -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="iq">“These were called knaves, but, bar the name,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">The grave industrious were the same:<br /></span> -<span class="i0">All trades and places knew some cheat,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">No calling was without deceit.<br /></span> -</div><div class="stanza"> -<span class="i0">The root of evil, avarice,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">That damn’d, ill-natured, baneful vice,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Was slave to prodigality,<br /></span> -<span class="i0"><em>That noble sin</em>; whilst luxury<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Employed a million of the poor,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">And odious pride a million more:<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Envy, itself, and vanity<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Were ministers of industry,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Their darling folly, fickleness,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">In diet, furniture and dress,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">That strange, ridiculous vice, was made<br /></span> -<span class="i0">The very wheel that turned the trade.”<br /></span> -</div></div> -</div> - -<p>The author of this unique production<span class="pagenum" id="Page_85">85</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_86">86</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>Not yet, then, have we found the human -standard by which the gambler is to be -denounced.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_87">87</span> -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.</p> - -<div class="poem-container"> -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="iq">“Gold! gold! gold! gold!<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Bright and yellow, hard and cold,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Molten, graven, hammered, rolled;<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Heavy to get, and light to hold;<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Hoarded, bartered, bought and sold;<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Stolen, borrowed, squandered, doled;<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Spurned by the young, but hugged by the old<br /></span> -<span class="i0">To the very verge of the church-yard mould,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Price of many a crime untold;<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Gold! gold! gold! gold!”—<cite>Thomas Hood.</cite><br /></span> -</div></div> -</div> - -<p>The <em>morale</em> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_88">88</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_89">89</span> -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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_90">90</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_91">91</span> -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.</p> - -<p>The gambler is said to be idle and non-productive: -that a <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">quid pro quo</i> is not given -for what he receives. What is meant here -by idleness and non-production? Does it -signify that <em>labor</em> is the proper basis of exchangeable -value: the <em>only</em> 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 <em>service</em> is the one equitable title to property. -What, then, of <em>assumed</em> rights, in -the form of profits, dividends, rent and -interest? If <em>true</em> wealth is the outcome of -physical labor, are not banker, broker, middleman, -landlord, capitalist, gentleman of leisure -and gambler on the same footing.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_92">92</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_93">93</span> -rightfully charge for its use, the cost of his -labor in transferring it to you, and the -amount of wear and tear.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_94">94</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_95">95</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_96">96</span> -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?”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_97">97</span> -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?</p> - -<p>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 <em>three billion four hundred -and twenty-two million dollars</em>.” In -England, to-day, there are less than 30,000 -landed proprietors—one-half of the country<span class="pagenum" id="Page_98">98</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <i xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">belle -lettres</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_99">99</span> -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?</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_100">100</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_101">101</span> -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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_102">102</span> -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.”</p> - -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_103">103</span></p> -<h2 id="The_Destinies">The Destinies;<br /> - -<span class="smaller">or,</span><br /> - -<span class="subhead">The Reign of Law.</span></h2> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_105">105</span></p> - -<div id="ip_105" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 41em;"> - <img src="images/i_p105.jpg" width="652" height="148" alt="" /></div> - -<p class="chaphead">CHAPTER III.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">The Destinies; or, The Reign of Law.</span></p> -</div> - -<p class="drop-cap x"><span class="smcap1">On</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_106">106</span> -“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.’</p> - -<p>“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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_107">107</span> -Cotten, Savage and Lloyd breathed their -last in jails.</p> - -<p>“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?”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_108">108</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_109">109</span> -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.</p> - -<p>Two great schools of philosophy divided -the educated opinion of classic Greece and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_110">110</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>Buddhism is the doctrine taught by Gautama, -the Hindoo sage, in the sixth century, -<span class="smcap smaller">B. C.</span>; 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_111">111</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_112">112</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_113">113</span> -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?”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_114">114</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_115">115</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_116">116</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_117">117</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_118">118</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_119">119</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_120">120</span> -in which we are placed.” The -idea was beautifully expressed by Emerson -in his poem “Fate.”</p> - -<div class="poem-container"> -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="iq">“Deep in the man sits fast his fate,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">To mold his fortune, mean or great:<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Unknown to Cromwell as to me<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Was Cromwell’s measure or degree;<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Unknown to him as to his horse,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">If he than his groom be better or worse,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">He works, plots, fights in rude affairs,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">With Squires, Lords, Kings, his craft compares,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Till late he learned, through doubt and fear,<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Broad England harbored not his peer.<br /></span> -<span class="i0">Obeying time, the last to own<br /></span> -<span class="i0">The genius from its cloudy throne,<br /></span> -<span class="i0"><em>For the prevision is allied</em><br /></span> -<span class="i0">Unto the thing so signified;<br /></span> -<span class="i0"><em>Or say, the foresight that awaits,</em><br /></span> -<span class="i0"><em>Is the same genius that creates</em>.”<br /></span> -</div></div> -</div> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_121">121</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_122">122</span> -acted differently in any act of our lives, -with the state of mind and circumstances -then existing.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_123">123</span> -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.)</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_124">124</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_125">125</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_126">126</span> -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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_127">127</span> -“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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_128">128</span> -thinking that suicide can be diminished by -the enactments of law-givers.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_129">129</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_130">130</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_131">131</span> -calibre, the acquisitive faculty, and a clannish -spirit.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_132">132</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_133">133</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_134">134</span> -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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_135">135</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_136">136</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_137">137</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_138">138</span> -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.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_139">139</span></p> -<h2 id="Legislative_Exorcism">Legislative Exorcism;<br /> - -<span class="smaller">or,</span><br /> - -<span class="subhead">The Belief in Word-Magic.</span></h2> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_141">141</span></p> - -<div id="ip_141" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 41em;"> - <img src="images/i_p141.jpg" width="651" height="155" alt="" /></div> - -<p class="chaphead">CHAPTER IV.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">Legislative Exorcism; or, The Belief -in Word-Magic.</span></p> -</div> - -<p class="drop-cap"><span class="smcap1">For</span> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_142">142</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_143">143</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_144">144</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_145">145</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_146">146</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_147">147</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_148">148</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_149">149</span> -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 <span class="smcap smaller">B. C.</span> 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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_150">150</span> -Following a revolt of the Women, in 195 -<span class="smcap smaller">B. C.</span>, 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">notatio censoria</i>, 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.”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_151">151</span> -In the time of Tertullian they appear to -be of the past.</p> - -<p>Instances of like legislation disfigure the -statute-books of every civilized country downward -from the fifth century, <span class="smcap smaller">A. D.</span> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_152">152</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_153">153</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_154">154</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>In France, laws of this character disappeared -near the end of the 16th century.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_155">155</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_156">156</span> -anybody else, and he would be ridiculed if -he sought to distinguish himself by a manner -of dress different from others.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_157">157</span> -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.</p> - -<p>Richard II., Henry IV., and Edward IV. -legislated against the liveried suits of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_158">158</span> -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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_159">159</span> -50<i>s.</i>; principal servant, 40<i>s.</i>; ordinary servant, -33<i>s.</i> 4<i>d.</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>Roscher remarks: “In Ireland the government -had endeavored for a long time to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_160">160</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_161">161</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_162">162</span> -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:</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_163">163</span> -of that kind, committed by any inhabitant -within this jurisdiction, provided they exceede -not the fine of 15 shillings for any -one offense.”</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>“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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_164">164</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_165">165</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>Here are some of the celebrated New -Haven “Blue Laws:”</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_166">166</span> -“No one shall run on the Sabbath Day, -or walk in the Garden or elsewhere, except -reverently to and from meeting.”</p> - -<p>“No one shall travel, cook victuals, make -beds, sweep house, cut hair or shave, on the -Sabbath Day.”</p> - -<p>“No woman shall kiss her child on the -Sabbath or fasting day.”</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>“If any man, after legall conviction, shall -have or worship any other god but the Lord -God, hee shall bee put to death.”</p> - -<p>“If any person turns Quaker, he shall<span class="pagenum" id="Page_167">167</span> -be banished and not suffered to return, upon -the pains of death.”</p> - -<p>“No priest shall abide in this dominion, -he shall be banished and suffer death on -his return.”</p> - -<p>“No man shall hold any office who is -not sound in the faith.”</p> - -<p>“No food or lodging shall be afforded -to a Quaker, Adamite, or other heretic.”</p> - -<p>“Every man shall have his hair cut round -according to a cap.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_168">168</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_169">169</span> -17,808 arrests for drunkenness during that -year.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>The political economists are practically<span class="pagenum" id="Page_170">170</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_171">171</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_172">172</span> -law; that somehow society is kept in order -by law.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_173">173</span> -legal marriage. There are not two punishments -for every hundred thousand violations -of the statutes against such intimacies.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_174">174</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_175">175</span> -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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_176">176</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_177">177</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_178">178</span> -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.”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_179">179</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_180">180</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_181">181</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_182">182</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_183">183</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_184">184</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_185">185</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>Buckle said, in this connection, every -great reform has consisted “not in doing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_186">186</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>In the name of “liberty and equality,” a -brave battle has been fought for individuality.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_187">187</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_188">188</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_189">189</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_190">190</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_191">191</span> -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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_192">192</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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.’”</p> - -<p>In what language can I fitly designate -a principle of action so impertinent and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_193">193</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_194">194</span> -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.”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_195">195</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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 <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">compos mentis</i>, -A. is not guilty of a crime, in the proper<span class="pagenum" id="Page_196">196</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_197">197</span> -and co-equal right of another man to -the control of his own person and property.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>“Without doubt, gluttony is the most -destructive of all our vices. It obtains<span class="pagenum" id="Page_198">198</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_199">199</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_200">200</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_201">201</span> -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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_202">202</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_203">203</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_204">204</span> -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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_205">205</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_206">206</span> -of “the statute in such cases made and -provided.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_207">207</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_208">208</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Crime, at common law is something<span class="pagenum" id="Page_209">209</span> -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.</p> - -<p>In a word, is gambling <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">malum in se</i>? In -answer, the common conviction of men has -never so regarded it. The common law -has ever recognized a boundary line which -separates the <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">mala in se</i> from the <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">mala -prohibita</i>. In law, a thing is <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">malum in se</i> -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 -<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">mala prohibita</i> are those things, otherwise -innocent or indifferent, which the legislative -power, having control over the subject, may<span class="pagenum" id="Page_210">210</span> -declare to be offenses.” Although not <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">malum -in se</i>, gambling may be <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">malum prohibitum</i>. -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.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_211">211</span></p> -<h2 id="The_King_is_DeadLong">“The King is Dead—Long Live the King.”</h2> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_213">213</span></p> - -<div id="ip_213" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 41em;"> - <img src="images/i_p213.jpg" width="652" height="147" alt="" /></div> - -<p class="chaphead">CHAPTER V.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">“The King is Dead—Long Live the King.”</span></p> -</div> - -<p class="drop-cap x"><span class="smcap1">Expressive</span> 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:</p> - -<p>Peasant:—“Who so proudly dares enter -here? Is he a just judge? Has he the -good of the country at heart?”</p> - -<p>Duke:—“He is and he will.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_214">214</span> -Peasant:—“I demand by what right he -will force me to quit this place?”</p> - -<p>Duke:—“He will buy it of you for sixty -pennies, and the horse and the bull shall -be yours.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_215">215</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_216">216</span> -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. -“<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">Vox Populi, Vox Dei</i>,” 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_217">217</span> -with the so-called <i xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">laissez-faire</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_218">218</span> -than creates private rights and personal -liberty.</p> - -<p>In the United States this “limit” has -been generally fixed at the power to enforce -the common and civil law maxim, “<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">sic utere -tuo, ut alieum non lædas</i>.” 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_219">219</span> -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 <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">foro conscientiæ</i>. 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.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_220">220</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>Certain matters are generally recognized<span class="pagenum" id="Page_221">221</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_222">222</span> -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.”</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_223">223</span> -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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_224">224</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_225">225</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_226">226</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“What! would you have gambling public?” -Yes, rather than private; and that is the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_227">227</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_228">228</span> -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:<span class="pagenum" id="Page_229">229</span> -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.</p> - -<p>“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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_230">230</span> -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.</p> - -<div class="chapter"><div class="transnote"> -<h2 id="Transcribers_Notes" class="nobreak p1">Transcriber’s Notes</h2> - -<p>Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made -consistent when a predominant preference was found -in the original book; otherwise they were not changed.</p> - -<p>Simple typographical errors were corrected.</p> - -<p>Unbalanced quotation marks were remedied when the -change was obvious or the quotation was found -in other sources. The others remain unbalanced.</p> - -<p>The illustration on the Title page is a decorative -floral; the other illustrations are decorative -headpieces.</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_109">109</a>: “the band of fate” was printed that way.</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_187">187</a>: Opening quotation mark has no matching -closing mark.</p> -</div></div> - - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -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-h.htm or 60005-h.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. - - - -</pre> - -</body> -</html> |