e liked with his own
things. Mr. Freeman held that a thing might be legally right and morally
wrong. A man had a legal right (he contended) to gamble--but in a moral
light he would not defend it. Suppose a man had two sons, and, from some
trivial cause, he resolved to cut off one of them with a shilling. He
had a legal right so to do--but perhaps he was morally wrong. Mr.
Freeman answered an article that had appeared in the Post. Mr. Freeman
contended that young men who engaged in gambling, did so generally from
a bad system of education.

The Post had contended, in opposition to Mr. Freeman's maxim that a man
had a right to do what he pleased with his own things, so long as he did
not interfere with others, that gambling did interfere with the rights
of others; for example, it might prevent men from paying their debts, or
it might prompt them to commit suicide, either of which was a wrong to
society. Mr. Freeman contended, nevertheless, that a man had such a
right--certainly he had, if he were not in debt--but if he were, it was
then his duty to live as long as he could, to endeavour to pay his
debts. Mr. Freeman illustrated his points by allusions to Gen. Taylor
and Gen. Jackson--adding, "let the truth be told if the heavens fall."

Mr. Freeman again opposed the new law passed against gambling--for, he
said, it was so shaped, that if a man of property gambled, he could not
be troubled, but a poor, itinerant gambler could be punished. Mr.
Freeman read the law in proof--wherein a difference certainly appeared
to be made between those who had something to live upon, and a merely
itinerant gambler--the latter liable to imprisonment if he kept a gaming
house, of from one to five years. Indeed, "being without a fixed
residence" is one of the features of the law. Such a law appeared to Mr.
Freeman as if, for example, a man of standing were to go into a store
and steal, he would be let off--- whereas, if an itinerant man were to
steal, he must be punished with years of imprisonment. The cases were
parallel, and yet, it seemed to him that a man of good standing ought to
be punished more severely than the other, because his temptations were
not so great. Such a law, so partial, was a disgrace to the
statute-book. From what he knew of legislators, he thought they had made
such a law, knowing that gambling was a bad vice, as a bugbear, to deter
people from engaging in it--and, in some cases, because they were afraid
of public op