for the losses sustained. As
such was the case, gambling should be a Penitentiary offence--but if Mr.
Freeman could prove that it was an upright and honourable calling, why
then, perhaps, he might induce us to apprentice our children to it.

After Mr. Green had spoken for a few minutes, the debate was adjourned
to Thursday evening next.

From the Evening Bulletin.

The great discussion on the subject of gambling came off last night at
the Chinese Museum, between Mr. Green, the celebrated Reformed Gambler,
and Mr. Freeman, the individual who acknowledges himself one of the
"sporting" band. The audience was very large and respectable. A board of
worthy gentlemen were appointed a governing committee, of which Dr.
Elder acted as chairman. The whole proceedings were marked with the
greatest decorum.

Mr. Freeman spoke first. He is a man somewhat advanced in years, and
possesses abilities, which we could wish were better applied than in the
defence, or even palliation, of such a corrupting habit as gambling. He
directed his batteries mainly against the late gambling laws in this
state.

He did not like the application to professional and not private
gambling. He denounced editors and ministers by wholesale; in regard to
the former, declaring that there was only one in the country who was
really independent, and that one, Bennett of the New York Herald! He
quoted Scripture, but that is not surprising, for we are told by the
poet, "the devil may cite Scripture." His manner was violent, and his
allusions to his opponent, Mr. Green, the very essence of bitterness.
He tried to slide his repugnance to that gentleman into the small corner
of contempt; but the whole audience could see that he, in reality,
entertained no such trifling feelings towards his opponent.

Mr. Green spoke in reply to Freeman, not only like a gentleman, but like
a Christian. He treated the sneers of his opponent with kindness,
seeming to be sorry, if one might judge from his manner, that he should
have boldly placed himself in the point which he occupies before the
community. There was a plain, straightforward honesty, as well as a
gentleness in the tone and manner of Green, which, though he did not
indulge in such a flow of language as his opponent, spoke volumes in
favour of his sincerity, and won for him new friends and admirers. His
opponent had intimated both by word and act, that he was not to be
trusted; he did not seem to feel it necessa