nd this was one influence brought in aid of a passage of the
law.

A vote was then taken on the question--"Shall the proceeds of this night
be given to Mr. Freeman?" It was decided in the affirmative by a large
majority.

Mr. Freeman did not deny that cheating was practised by the gamblers.
But Mr. Freeman contended that Mr. Green could not perform the tricks,
could not cheat with cards that he was not familiar with. Mr. Freeman
produced a pack which he had just bought, and were otherwise
untouched--and he said that Mr. Green could not operate with that pack.
He defied him.

Mr. Green said that this was no argument. But if Mr. Freeman would
agree, and the meeting would appoint a committee of twelve citizens, he
would before that committee meet Mr. Freeman, and with those cards
exhibit tricks of gamblers.

Some discussion ensued, and it was agreed that a committee should be
appointed. Subsequently Mr. Green said he would exhibit before the
audience; but that if Mr. Freeman shuffled the pack, he might of course
disarrange his (Mr. Green's) play. But Mr. Green had contended that any
gambler _in his own play_ could cheat. And Mr. Green displayed several
extraordinary tricks, in which he was remarkably successful,
particularly in illustrating the facility with which two partners in
gambling could win from their opponents with certainty.

At the conclusion of the meeting, upon Mr. Freeman submitting to the
audience the question--"Have I sustained my position?"--it was decided
in the negative. The question however, was not put until the audience
had risen to depart--but the response was general.

From the Daily Sun.

We have been no inattentive observers of the debate on gambling, between
Mr. Green, and his able and plausible antagonist, Mr. Freeman--who
brought to the defence of a bad cause, an energy, an earnestness, and a
power of illustration, which, on any other subject, must have crowned
him with the laurels of a brilliant victory. But what power of
logic--what force of elocution--- what stretch, of fancy, _can_ defend
gambling?--which, even if right _in itself_, is yet attended by such
baneful consequences--such appalling effects--as to strike terror into
the hearts of the most reckless, and seal the lips of eloquence by the
blood of the unfortunate? This was illustrated in a most striking manner
in the recent debate--where a long tissue of false logic, on the part of
Mr. Freeman, was blown to the winds b