here alluded, had a large number of members scattered among the
different tribes of Indians; that they are all about the western
country, in fact, and that all are true to each other as steel itself.
The negro assured me that he could find friends at every turn; yes,
those who _would die for him!_ He was well off, however, without them,
and had determined to pass the remainder of his days in living a life of
honesty; hoping that, by so doing, God would forgive him, if man did
not.
The negro told me much more in regard to himself and his companions. He
said he had been deaf and dumb, in order to find out what was going on.
He stood about and heard much said, which would not have been said had
it been supposed he could hear, and much, too, that was at times
extremely valuable to the band.
I told him that I had often noticed and pitied him. His reply was, that
he saw I felt for him, and it was none the worse for me that I did. This
very county where we were, was afterwards infested by Murrill and his
gang; and it was here that, in 1841, the citizens turned out and put to
death, by shooting and drowning, some forty or fifty villains.
But to return to the negro. I told him that his intelligence startled
me. He assured me, that while with him I was not in danger; that, to
tell the truth, where we then were was not a very bad tract of country.
For, said he, the brethren of Arkansas and Mississippi are not "clear
grit." That a few weeks preceding, a man by the name of Jeffries, who
had passed counterfeit money, they permitted to be taken and put to
death. He had, it seems, got off about one thousand dollars of the
spurious money on some river boatmen and traders; who returned when they
found the money was bad, pursued the counterfeiter to an island on the
river; where, after having stripped him naked and tied him to a tree,
they beat him to death! It was true this man was not a member of the
secret fraternity; but he would have been had his life been spared.
At this point of my conversation with the negro, I discovered the
steamboat HURON near by, so I shook hands with him and left him.
Rejoicing that a boat had at last come along, I was soon on board her,
bound for Louisville. We "wooded" some thirty miles distant from
Montgomery's Point, and at the wood-yard, I overheard one of the workmen
telling about the skeleton of a man which had been found on an island
near by; that it was tied to a tree, and that it was the remains of a
man who had been whipped to death for passing counterfeit money. The
woodman added, that the poor victim's watch and clothes were found
hanging near his skeleton. This story confirmed the statement of the
dumb negro on this point, and gave me confidence in all he had told me.
CHAPTER XV.
In the first chapter of this work, I have spoken of various attacks upon
my character; but not knowing from what motives they originated, I paid
no attention to them, nor should I to the one I shall here attempt the
exposition of, had it not been to satisfy the public that it was made
through a motive which I have every reason to believe a sinister one. I
will not offer through any remark intentionally to say such is the fact,
in relation to the intention of my imprudent opposer in my lone work of
mercy, for of the motives of a man no other man can judge; but will lay
our correspondence before the public, that they may examine and judge
for themselves.
No. 1.
State Prison, Auburn, April 7, 1845.
_To the Editor of the Tribune:_
We have had a recent visit from Mr. J. H. Green, the "Reformed Gambler,"
of whom you have previously spoken favourably in the editorial
department of your paper. Many are highly pleased with the man, and
think he should be sustained by public patronage and the press, inasmuch
as he comes with good credentials of moral and Christian character from
the church. Many think his course calculated to do much good, for this
and coming generations. He appears admirably calculated and accomplished
for exposing the deceptive marks and tricks of this heartless race of
land-pirates, called Gamblers, alias "_Sportsmen_." His description of
their infernal conduct and character cannot fail to put men on their
guard in season to shun them as they would a deadly pestilence that
walketh in darkness, and destruction that wasteth at noonday.
The grog-shop, the brothel, and the gambling-room, are three of the
blackest fountains of human misery over which the devil presides. From
these he gathers the bitterest waters of hellish destruction, and
spreads them broad-cast over creation: of which eternity can only
measure the full amount.
The Temperance Cause has attacked one of those sinks of Satan; the Moral
Reform enterprise has commenced upon another, and Mr. Green has now
taken the third "bull by the horns." Money and talent, and the press,
are enlisted against the two former, and shall we stand aloof, and leave
Mr. Green to combat the dragon single-handed and alone? It is high time
the whole community was aroused to the desolating evils of Gambling; and
the press, too, in thunder-tones, should be made to speak out upon this,
as upon other soul-destroying vices of the land.
Mr. Green has given five Lectures in our village: two in the Town Hall,
two in the Methodist Church, and one in the State Prison. On Sabbath,
sixth instant, at four o'clock, P.M., he addressed the children of the
several Sabbath-schools of the town, in the Methodist Episcopal Church,
to good effect; and in the evening, the same house was filled to a
perfect jam. Here Mr. Green was listened to with the best possible
attention; and I believe the great bulk of that immense throng, not only
believed him a reformed man, but also that he was doing a good and
necessary work in this country.
At nine o'clock, Sabbath morning, Mr. Green spoke to the unfortunate
inmates of this prison, numbering some eight hundred convicts, besides a
large concourse of citizens, who flocked to hear him at the same place.
His discourse was listened to in breathless silence by those men, and
hundreds of them wept freely, while listening to a recital of the
horrors of Gambling, as experienced during twelve wretched years of his
own gambling life, and of his reformation and salvation by grace in
Christ. A deep and powerful impression pervaded the vast concourse,
while all was graced by beautiful strains of vocal music by the "Boston
Quartet Club," and all passed off finely.
After Chapel service, Mr. Green and myself visited the cell of Henry
Wyatt, the murderer of James Gordon, of which the papers have spoken.
They readily recognised each other, as having been members of the same
gambling fraternity in the south and west. More than fifty gamblers were
named by them, whose doleful history was equally familiar to both.
Previous to this visit by Mr. Green, Wyatt had told me that gambling was
the cause of his ruin. At the close of our visit of some two hours, Mr.
Green gave Wyatt a pathetic exhortation to read his Bible, and pray
much, to repent of sin, and believe in Christ, and to seek religion as
the only thing which could prepare him for his approaching doom. Tears
flowed freely, and Wyatt exclaimed, "What a pity it is that you had not
come out in this way four years ago; then I should not have been here
in _chains_, as you see me now." We wept together, and left his cell in
silence.
Respectfully yours, &c.,
O.E. MORRILL, _Chaplain_.
No. 2.
From the Christian Advocate and Journal.
GREEN'S FIRST VISIT TO AUBURN STATE PRISON.
Doctor Bond:--
_Dear Sir_,--I shall be happy to contribute to your valuable sheet the
following communication:
I visited the Auburn State Prison, upon the morning of the 4th instant,
accompanied by the Boston Quartet Club, better known in New York city
than in this region for their valuable services in calling out so many
thousands to hear the eloquence of John B. Gough, in behalf of
temperance. We passed through the different workshops of the prison,
where many hundreds are doing the different labours allotted to them by
their agents. The health of the prisoners is as good, and spirits better
than any institution I have ever visited. Though the gloom of the
prisoner was not made manifest by his haggard countenance, yet I could
not prevent the melancholy reflection, that every heart knew its own
sorrow. I have seen much of human depravity in this wicked world--I have
felt the sensitive nerve made like an ice-drop by the cold finger of
scorn--I know how to sympathize with the child of circumstances--with
the heart-broken parent, whose pale, care-worn cheek but too plainly
speaks, "We feel trouble, but ye know it not." How many friends and
relatives are now bemoaning the loss of that boy who was once the pride
of all that knew him in the days of his affluence! Rising eight hundred
souls are now confined in the Auburn State Prison; and as my thoughts
expanded in their melancholy train, I asked myself, Who are to blame for
all the crimes committed, and which have incarcerated so many human
beings? I answered by referring to my own sad experience. By the
carelessness of the parent or guardian, the bud is nipped before the
blossom puts forth, and should it not scatter its leaves to the four
winds, it cannot fail to produce evil fruit. With these sad feelings, I
wended my way through the prison, which speaks well to the praise of the
different agents placed there to conduct the working departments.
On my return to the prison office, I was introduced to the chaplain,
Rev. O.E. Morrill, which reverend gentleman informed me that a man by
the name of Wyatt, then confined in one of the cells for the murder of
Gordon, on the 16th of March, in the Auburn State Prison, had confessed
to him that he had lived a gambler several years in the south and west,
and he would like I should call upon him. I accompanied him to the cell
of the murderer. The door was thrown open upon its grating hinges, when
the reverend gentleman introduced me as an acquaintance of his who had
travelled south several years, and thought that he (Wyatt) would be glad
to converse with him. He said he was happy to see me, and asked me to be
seated. After a short discourse, relative to the different classes of
men then in confinement, I asked him what he followed in his travels
through the south. He told me gambling. I asked him how long he had been
engaged in that nefarious business. He said twelve or thirteen years. I
asked him if he knew many gamblers? He said he did. I asked him if he
ever knew one by the name of Green? He said he did. I asked his name? He
answered, "John;" said he knew him in 1832, 1833, 1834, and 1835, and
saw him in 1842 in St. Louis. I asked him if he was intimate with Green?
He said he knew him as one gambler knew another. I asked if I favoured
him? He said if I would stand in the light he would tell me. I did so.
He said I looked like the man. I told him I was the man, but that I
never knew him by the name of Wyatt. He said I did not; that Wyatt was
not his real name. He then told me another, which was not his real name,
and asked me if I did not hear of a man being murdered near St. Louis in
the year 1841, and of two men being arrested, both tried and convicted,
one having a new trial granted him, the other being hung. I told him
that I thought I had. He said he was the man that had the new trial
granted, and was acquitted; "and," said he, "they hung the wrong man; he
was innocent; I am the guilty man; but they hung him and cleared me."
"But," says I, "you were under a different name still, at that time." He
said, "Yes, by none of those names do you know me, but my real name you
are familiar with. Your name," said he, "I knew in the year 1832; the
gamblers called you John, but Jonathan is your real name." My curiosity
was highly excited at the strange management of the murderer. But you
may imagine the increase of it when he told me his real name. I looked
at the murderer, and could scarcely believe my own eyes; yet he stood
before me a living marvel. I have pledged secresy as to his real name
until after his execution. I interrogated him on his first steps in
vice, and how he became so hardened. He told me to remember the
treatment he had received from the Lynchers' lash at Vicksburg. I did,
but my eyes could scarcely credit reality. I had known him in 1832,
1833, 1834, and in the early part of 1835, as a bar-keeper in Vicksburg.
He was never a shrewd card-player, but at that time was considered an
inoffensive youth. The coffee-house he kept was owned by North, who,
with four others, were executed on the 5th of July, 1835, by Lynch law.
Wyatt and three others were taken on the morning of the 7th, stripped,
and one thousand lashes given to the four, tarred and feathered, and put
into a canoe and set adrift on the Mississippi river. It makes my blood
curdle and my flesh quiver to think of the suffering condition of these
unfortunate men, set adrift on the morning of the 7th of July, with the
broiling sun upon their mangled bodies. Two died in about two hours
after they were set afloat. Wyatt and another remained with their hands
and feet bound forty hours, suffering more than tongue can tell or pen
describe, when they were picked up by some slave negroes, who started
with the two survivors to their quarters. His companion died before they
arrived. Wyatt survives to tell the horrors of the Lyncher's lash. He
told me seven murders had been occasioned by their unmerciful treatment
to him, and one innocent man hung. I know his statements to be true, for
I had known him before 1835, and his truth in other particulars cannot
be doubted. He murdered his seventh man, for which crime he will be
executed. I have another communication for your paper concerning the
murderer, and his prospects in the world to come.
Yours, truly,
J. H. GREEN.
Auburn, April 10, 1845.
No. 3.
From the Christian Advocate and Journal.
GREEN'S SECOND VISIT TO AUBURN STATE PRISON.
Doctor Bond:
_Dear Sir_,--I made my second visit to the prison on Sabbath morning,
the 6th instant, accompanied by the Boston Quartet Club. As we were
winding our way through the halls and passing the gloomy cells, I felt
sad and melancholy upon reflecting on the purpose of so large a prison.
Is it possible, thought I, that our heaven-favoured land of freedom
requires institutions of so extensive a character as this to keep down
the vices of a people who boast of their morality? Yet, horrible as it
appeared to me, I thought, if many of the foreign travellers, who are
ever ready to criticise and condemn our institutions, were conducted
through the Auburn State Prison, without any intimation of its design,
they would put it down in their journals of travel as an institution to
diffuse literary science and useful knowledge; and from what we have
learned of institutions of the latter kind, under monarchical
governments, we have little hesitation in saying, that they would not
compare well with this prison. Nor would they be willing that some of
their plans for the diffusion of useful knowledge, in the way of
charity, should be compared, in respect to health and religious
principles, with this institution, intended only for the punishment and
prevention of crime, and the reformation of criminals. And if it be the
fact, that our state's prison is better calculated than some foreign
institutions designed to educate the poor of the land for this same
purpose, it certainly will stand good that our land of liberty is
comparatively the land of morality.
We entered the chapel, where were seated nearly eight hundred convicts,
and something like one hundred citizens, who had been admitted for the
purpose of hearing the sweet melody of the Boston Quartet Club, and to
hear the reformed gambler speak upon a vice which had brought over one
hundred within the gloomy walls of a state's prison. Service commenced
with prayer by the chaplain, Rev. O.E. Morrill. The Boston Quartet Club
then sung the beautiful sacred piece, "Hear my Prayer," during which
breathless silence made manifest that the music was enjoyed. I was then
introduced as the reformed gambler, Mr. J. H. Green. When I arose, there
was profound silence throughout the chapel, to hear my sad experience. I
felt perfectly incompetent to give satisfaction to an audience, partly
composed of the most hardened wretches that infest our land--men who are
steeped to the very lips in degradation, many of whom are men of talent,
well-educated, and well acquainted with most of the leading topics of
the day, knowing, too, as I did, that an error might be construed into
an insult; and to such men an insult is unpardonable. I commenced by
relating my sad experience, and in a few minutes there could scarcely be
seen a dry cheek in that vast assembly of depraved men. My address being
closed, the prisoners were marched in order to their dining-room.
The chaplain and myself visited the cell of Wyatt, the murderer. We
found him sitting upon the straw which covered the floor. He seemed to
be somewhat indifferent when the chaplain first spoke to him, but upon
his second speech, telling that Mr. Green had again called to see him,
he sprung to his feet and shook hands with me--said he was glad I had
called--that he had been fearful I had left the prison, after giving my
address, without seeing him, and added, "Mr. Green, I would love to hear
you give your experience." I told him of the attention the prisoners had
given me, and the advice I had given them, about signing the
anti-gambling pledge, so soon as they were released--to come out with
their sad experience, and they would find the good and generous-hearted
ever ready to receive them. He turned round to the chaplain and said,
"How much good such a society as that would have done, had it been
formed before I became a gambler!--How many men it would have saved from
the dagger of the midnight murderer! But it is too late to save me." I
changed the subject, by asking him about different gamblers of our
country. We talked about many with whom we both had been intimate. Some,
he tells me, now live in your empire city, and were leading men among
the politicians in the last presidential contest. I knew them to be
leading men. I knew them to be gamblers and swaggering bullies; and I
knew them to be at one time connected with Wyatt, but did not know them
to be murderers; yet they certainly are.
Wyatt asked me if they permitted such men to vote? I told him they did.
Said he, "A gambler should not be entitled to a vote, nor to his oath."
He spoke correctly; and said he, "The day is not far distant when the
man, who is known to the world as a gambler, will not be countenanced."
Neither his vote nor his oath would be taken at the present day, if the
citizens, who are the bone and sinew of the country, would take into
consideration his real principles. He said, "No man who bets upon
elections should be entitled to his vote, nor to his oath; for a man who
can be excited to bet upon an election, can be excited when upon oath to
stretch the blanket; or, in plainer language, to swear to a lie. Such I
believe to be facts." "And lotteries are another species of villany,"
said he; "the money goes to the vendor, and makes his victim poor and
dishonest. Such I know to be facts." Pleased to hear a man, situated as
Wyatt, the murderer, is, reason so candidly, I changed the subject, in
order to learn more about the murders he had committed. I knew that a
man, in the year 1839, was missing from Natchez, by the name of Tucker,
and by the run of Wyatt's discourse, I found he was in that part about
the same time.
I told Wyatt that a man by the name of Tucker was supposed to have been
murdered about that date between Natchez and New Orleans. He laughed,
and said he knew something about it. "Myself and three others," said he,
"went to Natchez as produce speculators. Tucker owned a boat load of
produce. We contracted for it, advanced him money sufficient to pay off
his hands, telling him we had sufficient help; that he could go with us
to New Orleans, and that on our arrival there, we would pay him the
balance due. He did so. We paid him in a Mississippi bath. We murdered
him, and then threw him overboard." I asked him if he ever was
suspected. He said, not that he knew of. I asked him if he was not
afraid, when he was committing such a murder, that the body might rise
upon the water and be the means of their being suspected. "We cut their
entrails out," said he, "then they never rise until resurrection-day." I
felt heart-sick at his dreadful description of the murder of Tucker. I
knew him. He was a good, honest man. I arose from my seat, took him by
the hand, and bade him good day, promising him to call again. I will, in
my next, inform you of the particulars of my third visit, which will
lead you further into his dreadful history. I will in my next also speak
of his views on the subject of religion.
Yours, truly,
J. H. GREEN.
Auburn, April 17, 1845.
No. 4.
The following letter was written and published by the unanimous consent
of every honest citizen of Cleveland, Ohio, of which place I can only
speak in the language of commendation. It is one of the most virtuous
cities in the state, according to its population; and from the interest
two of the principal organs took in behalf of the anti-gambling cause, I
am certain that no filthy sheet can ever pollute its moral principles.
_To the Editor of the Cleveland Plaindealer:_
Mr. Gray, Sir--The Herald of last evening contained a letter over the
signature of O.E. Morrill, dated July 25th, 1845, charging J. H. Green,
"the Reformed Gambler," with misrepresenting the confessions made to him
by "Wyatt, the murderer." The Anti-Gambling Society of this city have
requested me, as its President, to publish the following letter, in
justice to Mr. Green, and in answer to Mr. Morrill. It was written on
the 12th of July last, in reply to Mr. Morrill's "private note,"
referred to in his letter published last evening. A true copy was made,
and the original forwarded to Mr. O.E. Morrill on the day of its date,
by Dr. Cowles, of this city. Deeming this letter a complete refutation
of the charges against Mr. Green, the Society have taken the liberty,
without his knowledge, of requesting you to place it before the public.
Your obedient servant,
John E. Cary.
Cleveland, August 5, 1845.
[This letter was written in reply to a letter addressed me by the Rev.
O.E. Morrill, requesting my return to Auburn, fifteen days previous to
his publishing my statements as false, and letter No. 7 will show in
what manner I replied.]
No. 5.
Cleveland, July 12, 1845.
_Mr. O.E. Morrill:_
Dear sir,--I have just received yours of the 10th. Speaking in regard to
Wyatt's case, you state that you was very much surprised at my letters.
Why did you not tell me so before they were published? You also heard
both the first and second letter before I left your section. Why did you
not object to them before?
Again, you say, some parts are my own representations. This I deny. I
will not say that I have given them verbatim, but this I do say, and
will maintain, that I have not exaggerated in my statements.
Yet I do not wish to injure that poor doomed man. God forbid. I do not
think as you do about Wyatt. I know him better than you do, or can. I
know that he has been the child of circumstances. I know that he is not
a man who will strictly confine himself to the truth; and fear of death
will make him do any thing that he is told to do. His denying what he
told me, I care nothing for. In my statements, if they were not correct
from him to me, I am not accountable; I believe them to be facts.
Now for a few questions to brighten your memory. When we entered his
cell for the first time, you introduced me as a man who had lived in the
south. I interrogated him on his past life. Did I not commence at
Huntsville, in the year 1832, and trace him to November, 1835, at the
mouth of the Ohio, with the Texas troops? When he told me that he had
known me up to that date, that he also saw me at St. Louis, do you not
recollect his asking me if I had not heard of a man being murdered in,
or near St. Louis, one man hung, and the other acquitted? And do you not
recollect I told him I thought I did; also, that at the same time I was
informed, that the people thought that the guilty man was cleared, and
the innocent one hung. He laughed, and said he was the guilty one, or
something amounting to the same? Do you recollect, in your own letter to
the Tribune, you stated that over fifty gamblers were recognised, with
whose doleful history we were both familiar? Also, do you not recollect
his telling about their lynching him; about the cords cutting his arms?
Do you not recollect when I talked about the Tucker, or flat-boat
murder, he told how they cut out the entrails, to prevent the body from
rising? Do you not recollect that you and myself talked the same over at
your house? You certainly cannot forget. He told me so much, I can think
of but little, which I thought most essential to remember. I am willing
to say nothing more about his case, until his execution; if I am
satisfied it will be beneficial to the community, as well as Wyatt. But
to retract one syllable, I cannot, unless I find myself mistaken, in
which case I will make any acknowledgment necessary.
You ask, or say, that, if I come back, something may be done
satisfactorily. I presume it can be done without my coming. You can
write to me at this city; I shall remain here two weeks. I suppose the
change of officers has made some in relation to the confession, of which
I know nothing about, but there is no fabrication, as far as I am
concerned, and the fact of a newspaper quarrel between you and I cannot
fail to injure, or at least excite the people more against him. You say
you will be forced into it. Do not be hasty. I do not fear any
inconvenience from any act of mine, but, of course, if you contradict my
statements, I have the same chance to support them; and, perhaps, there
are some facts, which, when revealed, will make you better satisfied
that the confession you have of Wyatt is not more than one-fourth true.
His dates are almost every one incorrect. His crimes are enlarged in
some places, diminished in others. You have the best right to his
confessions, if he alters it, and you have the most truthful history. I
told you when we parted, that I knew things relative to Wyatt, which he
would never tell you, with which you should be benefited after the
trial. They are in my possession, and I will not reveal them until he
has been tried, unless it should be necessary to show the fact of his
(Wyatt's) horrible character.
What has been said by me, cannot so far injure Wyatt, unless it is
perverted. But what I have said are facts, which I will not retract,
and they are of that nature which need no retractation. My memory is as
good as yours. I am striving to do right, the same as yourself, and will
contend that you are as liable to be mistaken as I am, especially when I
knew him in different circumstances. I blame you not for doing every
thing that is right to make Wyatt as happy as he can be, under his
present circumstances, but be careful that you are right.
I leave this matter for your consideration, believing that you will do
what is correct, so far as you are able. You can rest assured, that I
will do any thing in my power to assist. You will find, however, that I
am correct in my statements. Write me, and your letter shall have
immediate attention.
Yours, with respect,
J. H. GREEN.
No. 6.
From the Auburn Journal, July 30th.
State Prison, Auburn, N.Y., July 25, 1845.
Mr. Oliphant:--
_Sir_,--In justice to an unfortunate prisoner, now in chains awaiting
his trial at the next sitting of the court in this place, I feel in duty
bound to say to the public, that whatever Wyatt's character or conduct
may have been, or however many murders he may have committed, and may
ultimately be revealed to the public through the proper channels--yet
all Mr. Green has said about Wyatt's having confided to him, that he,
with three others, were whipped a thousand lashes at Vicksburg, which
had been the cause of seven murders, and that Gordon was the seventh man
that he (Wyatt) had killed, and that he (Wyatt) positively killed the
man at St. Louis, for which an innocent man was hung--and that he
(Wyatt) said _he_ killed Tucker in 1839, between Natchez and New
Orleans, is _untrue_ to my _certain_ knowledge.
Mr. Green's visits were all made in my presence, while Wyatt was
confined in his cell, a room some four by seven feet in size; hence, all
that passed between them could be distinctly heard and known by all
three of us.
I have no disposition to injure Mr. Green, but I should do violence to
every principle of justice and humanity, were I to remain silent, and
see a fellow-being tried for his life in the midst of that prejudice
which has already condemned the criminal to a thousand deaths, by Mr.
Green's published declarations of Wyatt's own confessions of bloody
deeds and horrid murders, when, in reality, the prisoner has made no
such confessions to him, to my certain knowledge.
To avoid this unpleasant task, I addressed a private note to Mr. Green,
calling for a satisfactory explanation; but, in his reply, he utterly
refuses a single retraction, and the only alternative left me is to let
the prisoner suffer this great injustice, or disabuse the public mind
from the wrong impressions made by fabrications of Mr. Green.
I hope to be spared the disagreeable necessity of resorting to the
newspapers of the day to correct any further improprieties of Mr. Green
on this subject. If I am not, I will give a specific catalogue of them
in my next.
All editors of newspapers, whether political or religious, are requested
to give the above an insertion in their columns, as an act of justice to
an injured man, and very much oblige.
Your obedient servant,
O.E. MORRILL, _Chaplain._
No. 7.
Toledo, August 5, 1845.
_To the Editor of the New York Tribune:_
Dear sir,--I beg leave to introduce to your columns the following
article, written for the purpose of satisfying the honest part of the
community, that a letter written by the Rev. O.E. Morrill, on the 25th
of July last, is an unprincipled misrepresentation of my purpose, in
bringing to light the horrid deeds of murder committed by Wyatt, now in
the Auburn State Prison.
I visited Wyatt four times, in company with Mr. Morrill, Chaplain of the
Prison. The time I spent with him in all these visits was about five
hours, during which we conversed about his former course of life. It is
impossible for me to state in one article all that he revealed to me,
but what I do remember, I published in my letters, relative to my visits
to the cell of Wyatt. The second of these letters was dated April 7th,
and the first about the 1st of April. I read both these letters to the
reverend gentleman; the first before it went to press, and the second as
soon as published, we being at both times together, with some officers
of the institution, in the State Prison office.
I now call the attention of the reader to a letter, from the reverend
gentleman, to the editor of the New York Tribune, of the date of April
7th, in which he speaks in the highest terms of my conduct. The reader
will notice that this is after my first letter was published, and after
he had heard them both read, and after he knew that I had given Wyatt's
confessions, which he now, in his letter of July 25th, declares to be
nothing more than "fabrications" of mine. If my statement of Wyatt's
confession were known to Mr. Morrill to be false, why did he recommend
me so highly in his letter of April 7th, and why has he not contradicted
me before this? The reverend gentleman says, that he did not wish to
injure me, and so addressed me a private note. If I could be so base as
to put forth to the world such falsehoods as he accuses me of, in regard
to a fellow-being, so soon to be launched into eternity, no fear of
injury to me can excuse the gentleman for his not exposing me
immediately to public scorn and detestation.
When at Auburn, after my visits to the cell, I spoke several times, in
the presence of Mr. Morrill, and other gentlemen, of Wyatt's confessions
to me; and yet Mr. Morrill, though present, never disputed one relation.
I also lectured some fifty times, within fifty miles of Auburn, and, in
nearly all, gave the same statements which he now contradicts. Why has
not Mr. Morrill published, together with his contradiction, my reply to
his note of July 10th? If he had, the community would have seen my
reasons for not retracting my former statements.
I am truly sorry to have any difficulty with the reverend gentleman, on
this subject or any other, but my duty in regard to this malicious
slander, (the motives of which I am unable to fathom,) compels me to
reply, and for no other purpose than to satisfy the community, that I
could have no personal object in view, in casting a stigma upon the
character of this unfortunate convict, by any statement he made to me,
for I certainly could not be benefited in any manner by publishing
falsehoods in relation to him.
I repeat again to the world, and ever will, that the unfortunate Wyatt
did to me confess all I stated he did, and much more, which it is
impossible for me to remember. If he stated falsehoods to me, I am not
responsible. He told me that he was one of _four_ that had received a
thousand lashes at Vicksburg, in July, 1835; and I knew a young man, by
the name of Henry North, to be about Vicksburg, and to be in the
employment of North, the gambler, who was hung at Vicksburg, by the
_lynchers_, in July, 1835. Henry, though of the same name, was not
related to the other, as I understood. When I went to the south in the
fall of 1835, I inquired about the gamblers of Vicksburg, and was told
that Henry North, alias Wyatt, or Newell, was, with four others,
whipped, tarred and feathered, hands bound, and set afloat, and the
supposition was that he, and the others with him, existed no more. When
Wyatt told me his real name, I was surprised at beholding him. He told
me that he had set fire twice to Vicksburg, and once to Natchez, and
that, during the conflagration, he murdered _three_ men. He told me he
killed Tucker in 1839. I talked with Mr. Morrill before several officers
of the prison, in regard to what Wyatt said about cutting the entrails
out of Tucker, and the confession which Mr. Morrill now has from Wyatt
will show the main circumstances of this murder, perhaps not giving
Tucker's name, but he speaks about the flat-boat murder, between Natchez
and New Orleans, and I claim it, in justice to me, that the reverend
gentleman should produce the confession Wyatt made, when he speaks of
"speculation on the Mississippi."
I also call on Mr. Morrill, in justice to myself and the public, to
answer the following questions. 1st. Did not Wyatt confess in his
presence the murder of individuals besides Tucker, on the Mississippi?
2d. Did he not say he cut the entrails out to prevent their rising? 3d.
Did he not say he was tried at St. Louis under another name, (I think it
was North,) and did I not turn to Mr. Morrill, and say, I knew some men
had been tried at St. Louis, but knew none of the parties; and did not
Wyatt then say that he was tried for murder at St. Louis, that he was
convicted on his first trial, but acquitted on a new trial, and that an
innocent man was hung? 4th. Did I not tell Mr. Morrill, that Wyatt
informed me that he had been a convict in the Ohio Penitentiary; and
does not Mr. Morrill recollect that upon my third visit to Wyatt's cell,
I said to Wyatt, that it was reported he had been in the Ohio
Penitentiary, at which Wyatt frowned, and I changed the tenor of my
question by stating, that Gordon said he (Wyatt) had been there, and
that Wyatt laughed, and said it was such d----d lies which occasioned
Gordon's death; and did not Mr. Morrill say to me, he knew many of
Wyatt's _misfortunes_, which he kept secret from the agent of the
prison; and will Mr. Merrill deny that when we went into the office,
after my last visit, that the clerk again repeated that Wyatt had been
in the Ohio Prison, and did not I then decide with the clerk, the
probability of such being the fact, and did not Mr. Morrill still
_insist_ that it was a false report?
In conclusion I will say, that whatever may be the reverend gentleman's
intentions towards me, and in his own behalf the motives for which I am
not able to penetrate; yet, although he brands my statements as false,
and although the cell was but four by seven feet in size, I leave it to
the community to decide, whether two men, who can speak the "flash
language," in which one word can convey sentences, may not hold a
conversation not easily understood by a third person, ignorant of its
meaning--and can Mr. Morrill assert what meaning was conveyed by such
language between Wyatt and myself? if so, he is the first man I ever
knew that could interpret a language or tongue he never studied. At
least one-fourth of the conversation between Wyatt and myself before Mr.
Morrill, was of this kind. I do not think Mr. Morrill understood all he
heard, yet the greater part of what I published in my letters was spoken
in plain English, and Mr. Morrill, at the time, gave vent to his
feelings over the dreadful disclosures.
I ask the papers of the day to publish this statement in justice to both
parties, as well as the public at large.
J. H. GREEN.
No. 8.
Correspondence of the New York Tribune.
Perrysburgh, Ohio, August 16, 1845.
_Mr. Greeley_,--I wish to introduce to the columns of your valuable
paper the following. Though it may seem mysterious and out of date, it
will be read with much interest by many, and may have a tendency to cast
a light upon one of the most horrible murders ever committed in this or
any other Christian land. There is not one shade of doubt remaining in
my mind but that the murderers, as well as their victim or victims, long
before the date of this article, might have been discovered, had there
been sufficient effort made. True, efforts have at last been made, and
the skeleton of one murdered victim found, and much search made for the
other. The particulars which led to the but small effort which has
already been made, are collected from circumstances as follows:--As near
as we can learn, in September, 1844, a gentleman, by the name of
Stephens, from the state of New York, made his appearance in
Perrysburgh, remained in and near some days, left, sometime after
returned. About the time of his departure from the second visit, he made
known his business, that he had kept secret until the time near his
departure. He then told that two men had been murdered, and their bodies
concealed in the woods about one-half mile from the last turnpike gate,
which is about four miles from Perrysburgh. His statements corroborating
some previous signs of murder, induced the citizens to turn out and
scout the swamp in search, knowing as they did that certain packages of
clothes had been found in the Maumee river by a fisherman, on the 17th
April, 1844. The clothes found were done up in parcels, coat,
pantaloons, and vest, with a stone tied round each, with strips of
handkerchiefs cut or torn for the purpose. Upon examination, the clothes
were cut in a way to show they had been ripped off from the body. The
pantaloon's legs cut open; the coat cut open from the back and sleeves;
the vest also cut open from the back. The coat had many cuts in the left
sleeve, also a hole about the lower button on the right side, which hole
was in the pantaloons, cutting the lower suspender in two. The vest had
several cuts in it, immediately back of the neck, through the collar,
and two knife holes. The vest is a figured worsted piece of goods, of
lilac colour, about half-worn. The coat is a black cloth frock, or
surtout, but little worn, no velvet upon it, lined inside of the skirts
with black silk or serge, the sleeve lining twilled linen. Inside of
the left sleeve is a mark of the merchant, which is one cipher--nothing
more. From the looks, I should have taken the coat to have cost twenty
dollars. The pantaloons are rather of a blue colour, striped casinet,
and have never been worn much. The suspender, which has been cut in two,
is a common striped web. The two handkerchiefs are figured silk,
half-worn. When they were found, it was evident they had not been long
in the water. I have a piece of each garment, and persons who have
missed any of their friends mysteriously perhaps might find, upon
examination, that which would lead them to know their friend had
suffered death from the hands of a murderer. A sample of each I will
keep to exhibit through the country, hoping to solve the mystery.
Now for the mysterious visits of Mr. Stephens. About his departure from
the second visit, he disclosed certain things, which I will give
according to my information. He said he had been informed by certain
convicts, then in the New York State Prison at Auburn, that they had
murdered two men in the said swamp, and had concealed their bodies. One
they had stripped; the other, left his clothing upon him. They stated
that the murdered men were travelling in a buggy, and that they (the
murderers) stopped the buggy, presented their pistols, forced them into
the woods, where they shot one, and stabbed and butchered the other. Not
far from the same place, a hat was found with a bullet-hole in it, but
no sign was left upon the body found which would indicate that he had
been brought to his death by a ball, which also goes farther to prove
the probability of the murder of two men. They buried them, as they
state, about one-half mile apart, strip ping the clothes off from one,
which they took along with them in the buggy, and made their way to the
Maumee river. Not thinking it politic to cross at the toll-bridge, they
went up to the ford, near Fort Meigs, and found the river not in a
fording state. They tied stones to the clothes and threw them in the
river, where they were afterward found, and crossed the bridge to the
north side of the river, went below Toledo, took the buggy to pieces,
sank it and the harness in the river, and took the horse out back of
Manhattan and killed it. In the early part of the summer following two
men were arrested near Geneseo, New York, for committing burglary.
Apprehension of another attack almost forbids me giving their names,
while duty doubly nerves me to speak and let the public know that
_Wyatt_, alias Newell, or North, and Head, his accomplice in the
burglary at Geneseo, are the two murderers who gave Mr. Stephens his
information, and caused his visit to ascertain the truth of such horrid
deeds. Other circumstances leave no doubt resting with the people of
this part that the same two men, Wyatt and Head, murdered John Parish,
of Hancock county, while attempting to arrest them for horse-stealing. A
small explanation of this fact I will make. It will be remembered by
many that Wyatt attempted to make his escape from the Auburn prison, and
when Gordon, the man he afterward murdered, told the keepers, he was
searched, and upon his person a letter was found, which letter contained
no names of men or places, nor was it directed; but from the purport, it
was evidently written for the purpose of sending to Ohio, for it stated
that he dare not venture back, as the people would recognise him as the
murderer of a certain officer who had made an attempt to arrest him. The
reader will also recollect that Wyatt, under the name of Newell,
resided in Toledo in the commencement of 1844 until April 1st, 1844,
when he left Toledo, and was not heard of until Mr. Stephens'
revelation. I would say, in conclusion, so far as this statement may
have a tendency to excite the citizens to their duties, relative to
those mysterious murders, that I hope those concerned in ferreting out
the particulars hereafter will not have a malignant feeling for any
stranger who may come among them to assist, not for honour or profit,
as, undoubtedly, so far as this mysterious affair is concerned, some of
the principal workers have made the two latter-mentioned their object. I
believe this, so far, to be the most correct account of those mysterious
murders, and if it is thought by any concerned that a more able report
can be given, come out and do your duty.
J. H. GREEN.
This article is introduced for several purposes--all of which we
consider of importance to substantiate the facts we have laid before
them. Those murders, near Perrysburgh, were committed by Wyatt and Head,
his colleague, who is now in the State Prison at Auburn, New York. After
the controversy had taken place, I availed myself of the opportunity to
search into facts concerning Wyatt, and found, in addition to those set
forth in the preceding letter, the following:--Wyatt, alias Robert Henry
North, was hired as a stage-driver near Chillicothe, Ohio, in the latter
part of 1838, but decamped in a short time afterwards with a horse
belonging to another man, and made his way to Portsmouth, Ohio; where he
was taken and carried back to Chillicothe, tried, and convicted to serve
three years in the Ohio Penitentiary. In 1841 he was released. He then
left for Missouri, where he again got into difficulty, which detained
him until 1843. He told me he was tried for his life in St. Louis,
convicted, got a new trial, and was acquitted. If he was, it was under a
different name from any above mentioned, and the murder he was tried for
must have been Major Floyd. But I do not believe he was one of those
tried, and acquitted, as he professed to be. He then made his way across
the country to Louisville, Kentucky. From there to a town called Mount
Gilead, in Ashland county, Ohio, where he went to work at the business
of tailoring, a trade he had learned in the Ohio State Prison. In a
short time after he arrived there, he married a very respectable lady,
with whom, for the short period they lived together, he led a very
disagreeable life. In the latter part of 1843, or the beginning of 1844,
he left for Toledo, Ohio, where he hired out, and lived up to the time
spoken of in the preceding letter, and where he committed the crimes
referred to in the same. After which, he made his escape to the state of
New York, in company with the notorious villain, Head, where they
committed a burglary, and were sentenced to the Auburn State Prison from
Geneseo. When Wyatt arrived at the penitentiary, he was recognised by an
old companion who had served in the Ohio Penitentiary, by the name of
Gordon. Gordon gave information to the keepers, of Wyatt's having served
a time in the penitentiary in Ohio. Wyatt became enraged, and despairing
of any chance of a pardon, being sentenced, I think, for fourteen years,
he tried to effect his escape, but was detected and severely punished.
He then swore vengeance against Gordon, whose time was nearly expired;
and on Saturday, the 15th of March, 1845, he secreted about his person
one-half of a pair of shears, given him to work with in the tailor's
shop, which he reserved until the next day, (Sabbath, the 16th,) and as
the prisoners were marching to their cells from their dinners, stabbed
Gordon in the right side, immediately below the ribs. The instrument
passed towards his spine, through one of the main arteries, killing him
almost instantly, and for this last deed he was hanged.
Finally, let me say to those who may be anxious to know more of the
history of this unfortunate man, and of his crimes, that I have looked
with great anxiety for the third letter, spoken of in my second to the
Christian Advocate and Journal. That the mystery of their not appearing
has been no fault of mine. I wrote four letters, and but two appeared.
Whether they were detained by the false and garbled statements which
have been set forth by the Rev. O.E. Morrill, or whether they have ever
been received, I am unable to say. However, I have written twice to Dr.
Bond, and, as yet, I have not been able to learn by what authority they
have been detained. But should I have them returned, the public may be
welcome to them for their worth.
Since the execution, we learned from those present, that Wyatt was taken
from his cell, faint from the loss of blood he had shed a few days
before, in his attempt to commit suicide. When seated in his chair,
under the gallows, he made remarks like the following: "I have lived
like a man, I will die like a man. I am not afraid to die. I am about to
enter eternity, and appear before my God. My conduct has been
misrepresented--men have sworn falsely against me--I cannot and will not
forgive them--I am not the man I have been represented to be--I did not
commit the murder charged upon me in Ohio. I am thankful to the sheriff
and his family for their kindness." He manifested no religious penitence
to the last. He died an unbeliever.
* * * * *
In conclusion, I would say to those who have perused this work, so full
of strange and startling incidents, let not their mysterious and dark
character cause you to doubt of their truth. Recollect that there are
strange events in the life of every man, many of which he cannot fathom;
and were the whole circumstances of your own life disclosed, it is not
impossible that many of them would exceed belief. Horrible as is the
picture of depravity here exhibited, the half has not been told, nor
would I reveal one iota more than I deemed necessary to awaken the
public attention to a sense of their danger, and a corresponding sense
of their duty. Reader, you may be standing upon the edge of a precipice,
though you know it not. Fathers, your sons may frequent these haunts of
vice, and be entangled in the snares of the destroyer. Wives, mothers,
sisters, daughters, lend us your aid to save those you love from
destruction. You need not be ignorant, that around you are hundreds of
individuals who live in affluence upon the spoils of their industry. It
is not gamblers that support gaming. If the merchant, and lawyer, and
tradesman, and the man of fortune did not supply them with the material,
their profession would die. In all my works I have shown how gambling
lends to, and is connected with, all other crimes; and I beseech you, as
you love your families, yourselves, and our common country, that you
lend your aid and influence to abate this evil. This vast conspiracy
against your lives and fortunes, which I have here developed, is no
chimera. Its workings are everywhere felt, though the machinery is
unseen. I have no object but your good in making this disclosure; and
should it meet the eye, as I have no doubt it will, of some one not a
stranger to its crimes, I beseech him to consider his ways. Why should
he live a curse to the earth--a destroyer of his kind--a blot upon
creation--a dishonour to his Maker? Heaven and earth are equally ready
to receive the returning prodigal. The only danger--the only disgrace is
to continue where you are. In behalf of our Maker, in behalf of
humanity, in behalf of all that is noble and virtuous, I beseech you to
TURN, _why will ye die_?
DEBATE ON GAMBLING,
BETWEEN
MR. FREEMAN THE AVOWED GAMBLER, AND MR. GREEN, THE REFORMED GAMBLER;
BEFORE THE CITIZENS OF PHILADELPHIA, IN THE LECTURE-ROOM OF THE CHINESE
MUSEUM, ON THE EVENINGS OF THE 10TH, 13TH, AND 15TH OF MAY, 1847.
_Mr. Freeman's challenge, and Mr. Green's acceptance, as published in
the papers of the city of Philadelphia._
From the Inquirer.
It is well known that Mr. Green, the Reformed Gambler, gave a Lecture at
the Museum on Monday night last, in which he exposed the arts and
devices of the Gambling Fraternity of the Union. His audience was quite
large, and his illustrations were listened to with no little interest.
It seems from the following article, which we copy from the Sun of
yesterday, that a professional Gambler was present. His Card or
Challenge is quite a curiosity:
Mr. Editor:--Having attended the Lecture of J. H. Green, last evening, at
the Chinese Museum, on the popular vice of Gambling, and differing from
him in each and in every view which he took, and which he is in the
habit of taking upon that subject, I beg leave respectfully to say to
him through the medium of your columns, that I have made up my mind to
confront him in debate, in regard to the right and wrong of the subject
in question. I say, I am willing so to do, provided it meets his
views, and those of the community. If he, and those who admire his
theory, are the friends of truth, surely they will not shrink from
investigation?--and if I cannot sustain myself in debate, why, his
triumph will add strength to his cause.
With regard to _who_ I am, I will say in a single word that I am a
professional Gambler. I shall set out, if we meet, to prove to the
audience, among other things, that in his illustrations of the cheatery
which he says the gambler practices upon his victim, he is actually at
that very moment practising a palpable cheat upon the very audience
which he is proposing to enlighten. As regards any profits that may
arise from such a meeting, I want none, although perhaps as needy as Mr.
Green.
As regards experience in debate, Mr. G. has decidedly the advantage of
me in that respect. I have had the honour of addressing public audiences
four times in my whole life, and but four--two of these were in favour
of Old Tip, in 1840, and the other two upon the subject of temperance. I
am well aware that there are many persons who would look upon it as a
sort of inconsistency that a man, occupying my position, should be the
honest advocate of temperance--but they so reason because they are
uninformed in regard to the higher order of gambling!
Should Mr. Green accede to my proposition, he only has to name his time
and place--or if he prefers to have a personal interview, he can do so.
I am willing to wait on him at his boarding-house, but would like to
have at least one respectable person present to hear all that passes
between us.
J.G. FREEMAN.
N.B.--I am a native of South Carolina; I am known from Virginia to
Orleans. Mr. Green I have seen in that city, and he no doubt recollects
me, though I never had any intimacy with him.
We publish below another communication from Mr. Freeman, in which he
announces that Mr. Green has accepted his challenge to debate, and lays
down his points for argument. We are glad of this, and have no doubt the
public will share in our curiosity to know what kind of a defence can be
made by a gambler, even so _polished_ as Mr. Freeman, for a vice fitly
characterized by Mr. Green as "fifty per cent. worse than stealing."
Expectation is on tiptoe.
Communicated for the Sun.
Mr. Editor--I return to you my sincere thanks for having kindly
published my letter to Mr. J. H. Green, the reformed gambler; and beg
leave now to state to you, that I have had an interview with him, and
that he fully consents to go into the debate. It now devolves upon me,
since I have assumed the character of _plaintiff_ in the action, to
define minutely the exact points to be discussed.
The first position, then, that I shall assume, is that all those states
in this Union that have enacted very severe laws against gambling, such
as making it a penitentiary offence, &c., have acted both tyrannically
and unwisely--_tyrannically_, because they are an infringement upon
those sacred reserved rights that never were yielded in what law
commentators call the "social compact"--and _unwise_, because their
tendency is to generate immorality rather than stop it.
The second ground that I shall take, is that the character of that class
of beings called "gamblers" is less understood by the community at
large, and especially by that portion of it that have had no intercourse
with them, than any class of men in the world. That it has ever been the
misfortune of the gambler to be misrepresented, not only of late by Mr.
Green, but generally by those that have attempted to portray his
character in the prints.
I shall undertake to show him up in his true character, making it
neither better nor worse than it really is--"_Let justice be done if the
heavens fall._"
In the third place, I shall propose to prove beyond question, that
cheating at cards is decidedly the most unfortunate thing for the cause
of gambling and gamblers, that possibly could exist. And on the other
hand, that it is the very saviour of that portion of mankind who have a
sneaking fondness for play.
In the fourth place, I will attempt to prove that those tricks that Mr.
Green is in the habit of illustrating with cards, are entirely
worthless; that they can _not_ be reduced to practice; that if they can,
it must be on persons wholly destitute of common sense; that an opinion
that he can tell any cards by the back, is entirely untrue; that neither
he nor any other man can do any such thing, unless the cards have been
marked either by himself or some other person.
In the course of those proceedings, I shall take upon myself, for the
benefit of the young and inexperienced who may be present, to make such
developments as will be of lasting importance to them in their sojourn
through this mazy world; for, as Mr. Calhoun once said of the
Constitution of the United States, if there be any one man that loves
innocent youth better than all others, I claim to be that man. To seduce
one into _any_ vicious habit when uncontaminated, is a thing I would
_scorn_ to do. And the pleasure which I feel, when I reflect upon it, of
having actually saved some half dozen from ruin, is to me unspeakable.
But for this I know I am never to be credited; for Mr. Green has
informed us that the gambler is _hardened_, for he never goes to church,
and if you reach him at all it must be with a penitentiary act.
But, pardon me, Messrs. Editors, this is not the time nor the place for
the argument.
Yours, respectfully, J.G. FREEMAN.
Mr. Green says he will inform me on to-morrow when it will suit to have
the meeting.
Mr. Green, it will be seen by the following letter, has consented to
meet his challenger in debate on the subject of gambling. We are glad of
this, inasmuch as Mr. Freeman is said to be quite an intelligent
gentleman, and stands at the head of his _profession_. The discussion,
if conducted in a proper spirit, will be attended by good results.--ED.
For the Daily Sun.
Philadelphia, April 29, 1847.
_Messrs. Barrett & Jones_:--In the "Sun" of the 28th and 29th inst. are
two communications, over the signature of J.G. Freeman, proposing to
controvert my positions relative to the gamblers, and challenging me to
a public discussion.
This individual called upon me after the publication of his first
letter, and seemed to be honest in his intentions to defend his system
of untold enormities. If the public, therefore, can be benefited, and my
reformatory purpose in this particular promoted, as I suspect it will, I
would rather court than avoid such an interview.
I have long wished for, but certainly never expected such a discussion.
I see the shoe begins to pinch. I am glad to perceive that those for
whom it was made are beginning to feel and cry aloud. Just as I
anticipated, the _law_ seems to be the part which binds most. Men who
are most without conscience are generally most restive in view of a
threatening penitentiary.
I will accept the challenge to meet him on the several points proposed
in his communications. Indeed I am happy that he has chosen his own
grounds; for the best which such opposition could select is likely in
all conscience to be bad enough.
Suffer me therefore to say to your correspondent that I intend lecturing
on the evenings of the 10th, 13th, and 15th of the coming month, (May,)
at the Lecture-room of the Chinese Museum, on George street; at which
times I will be very happy if he will attend and defend such positions
as are assumed in the two communications alluded to.
I shall require, however, that a committee of gentlemen be chosen to
control the discussion.
J. H. GREEN.
The Lecture-room of the Museum will, we think, be found much too small
to accommodate the audience, who desire to be present on these
interesting occasions. Would it not be better to take the upper part of
the Museum building? It would certainly be filled.--ED.
Messrs. Editors:--There is a feature in Mr. Green's acceptance to my
challenge to meet him in debate upon the subject of gambling, with which
I frankly confess I am not at all pleased. Upon looking over it, you
will discover that he uses the following language: "Suffer me,
therefore, to say to your correspondent, that I intend lecturing on the
evenings of the 10th, 13th, and 15th of the coming month, (May,) at the
lecture-room of the Chinese Museum, on George street; at which time I
will be very happy if he will attend and defend such positions as are
assumed in the two communications alluded to." Now, I should like to
know Mr. Green's motive for calling a _debate_ a _lecture_? Why not call
things by their right names?
You will, therefore, Messrs. Editors, be pleased to inform your
correspondent, Mr. Green, that I cordially consent to meet him at the
time and place designated by him, for the purpose of _debating_ the
gambling question; and the cash which may be taken at the door to be
divided between us, if any, after all the expenses are paid, or to be
disposed of in such a manner as the committee may deem just and proper.
'Tis true, I did say in my first communication that I did not care to
have any of the money, and I so felt and so thought at that time; but
since, I have employed some reflection upon the subject, and, like some
of our modern politicians, I have _changed_. 'Tis true that money is no
part of the motive, but then, as Mr. Polk once expressed himself in
regard to the tariff and protection, I am willing that it should come in
_incidentally_.
Now, it falls to my lot to know much more of the history of Mr. Green
than any of those who know it only from his own statements and
publications. About four or five years ago, in the city of New York, I
became acquainted with a gentleman by the name of Ball, a dealer in
ivory; this Mr. B. exhibited a large quantity of Mr. Green's cheating
cards, and said that Mr. Green was largely in his debt, and that his
only way to make the debt was to sell those cards, and asked me to buy.
He then took me into another room and exhibited to me some very costly
machinery, and certainly the strangest I had ever seen;--it had been
invented by Mr. Green to put a sign on white-back cards, so as to know
them by the backs. He also showed me other stamps invented by Mr. Green.
Now the consummation of this work had cost Mr. Green not only much
valuable time, but all the money he could possibly borrow; but, after
all, the thing ends in disaster--the cards don't sell. Desperation
seizes upon him. Like Arnold, he now throws his eye over to the other
camp, and thinks what might be done in the way of a reward. He consoles
himself with the reflection that he will, at least, be upon the side of
virtue: "I will tell the public that my only motive is to benefit the
rising generation, (a profitable thought with Mr. Green, 'the rising
generation'); but in order to begin right, I will publish to the world a
full history of my life, in which it will devolve upon me to make a
confession of my sins. All, I will disclose to the world; but as to that
ponderous machinery at Mr. Ball's in New York--I rather think I will
skip that."
Now when poverty pinched the prodigal son, as it did Mr. Green in New
York, what was the language of that truly penitent. Alluding to his old
father, he says: "I will go and tell _all_ I ever done, &c." But when
Mr. Green resolves to put on a mask of penitence, what is his course? I
will go and tell those good ministers of the gospel, and others, _half_
I ever done, &c., and then take good care to run my hand as deep into
their purses as possible.
Now in Mr. Green's crusade against gambling and gamblers, if he had
shown signs of purity of motive, and had not wantonly and knowingly
misrepresented the men, and disguised the facts in regard to the
profession, I would be the last man living to impugn him. But the
motive, I consider, was _corrupt_--'twas spoils;--and in the mode of
attack, the established principle in morals has _not_ been regarded,
which is, that the means in the accomplishment of any public good must
always be as honest as the ends; and for these reasons I do feel
sanguine in the belief, when the trial comes off at the Chinese Museum
next week, that if I do not get the verdict, I shall do more--I shall
deserve it.
Yours, &c. J.G. FREEMAN.
N.B.--If the gentlemen, editors generally, of this city, will give the
above communication a place in their columns, with such comments as they
may think fit to make, they will confer a favour upon one of the
proscribed, but one who suffers no man to stand in front of him as a
lover of truth.
J.G.F.
Communicated for the Sun.
_Messrs. Barrett & Jones_:--I had supposed that my consent to Mr.
Freeman's request to be heard in defence of his fraternity, had fixed
that issue. I did not intend by the announcement of my lecturing on the
evenings alluded to by Mr. F., that they were to be any thing more than
a fair discussion of the character and tendencies of gambling, if Mr. F.
should think proper to participate. I wish it now to be so understood. I
want a committee of gentlemen to arrange this matter. But why Mr. F.
should suppose that he should have half the proceeds of the meeting, I
am unable to conjecture. He seeks an opportunity to defend his business
against attacks which it seems has excited no small share of alarm on
his part, or those whom he represents, and yet he demands remuneration!
The fraternity must be in a rather forlorn condition at present, if they
are unable to pay their attorney, in so philanthropic a cause. When we
consider the source, this demand sits with ill grace upon such a
champion. I have laboured now for four years, having commenced my reform
without a dollar, to expose this damnable vice. If I am not supported by
the public which my labours are designed to benefit, those labours must
necessarily cease.
Were Mr. F. similarly engaged, I would share with him not only the
profits of my meetings, but my heart's best feelings also.
I shall be very happy if I am met, as I was led to believe, am no
speaker, but somewhat skilful with cards, _and their_ use by me before
an intelligent audience is my argument; I want no better for my purpose.
J. H. GREEN.
Messrs. Editors:--It appears from Mr. Green's last communication that he
and I are at issue in regard to the preliminary arrangements of the
debate that is to come off next week, upon the gambling question. He
thinks that he ought to have all the proceeds of the meeting; and I
think it should be equally divided, or else given to some charitable
institution, or else have it free. Mr. Green's argument for supposing
that he should have _all_, is, that because he has been labouring four
years, he ought to be rewarded: and in rather a threatening tone gives
the public to understand that if they do not reward him he will quit.
"If I am not," he says, "supported by the public, which my labours are
designed to benefit, those labours must necessarily cease." Now, _my_
argument for supposing that the proceeds should be equally divided is,
that I claim to be the _real_ reformer; that it will be seen by those
who may attend the discussion, that it is _I_ that am the true
moralist--I shall go with the New Testament in one hand, and Dr. Paley's
Moral Philosophy in the other, and upon that battery, and no other, will
I plant my artillery. He that is _green_ enough to suppose that I am
green-_horn_ enough to get up before a large audience, in the
enlightened city of Philadelphia, to defend an absurdity, must be
verdant indeed I go not to defend gamblers, but to defend truth, and to
show that Mr. Green, like a corrupt witness, in his eagerness to procure
a verdict for his party, goes beyond the facts; and that too when there
is no necessity for it, for the gambler has real sins enough without
heaping others upon him which he never committed. Now then, to end all
this difficulty at a blow, I make to Mr. Green the proposition--That the
honourable Mayor of the city, if he will do it, be the person to appoint
the committee that is to conduct the debate, and to the decision of the
committee, as to the funds, will I cordially submit, but not to Mr.
_Green's ipse dixit_. And here I will further suggest, that the
committee be composed wholly of lawyers. This will be proper, because it
is a question of law that is to be discussed; and further, it is
presumed that they understand better than any other class of men what is
called parliamentary usage.
Should this proposition not be acceded to, which I _know_ is fair, my
course will be to debate the question on "my own hook," and in that case
take all the money and give Mr. Green not a dollar of it, but invite him
to come to _my_ quarters, and defend himself, for I shall certainly be
down upon him--and so let him go to his house the next night and take
what may be offered at his door, and allow me to answer him in what he
may have to say.
When Mr. Green, in his acceptance of my challenge, _would_ call the
debate a _lecture_, I saw that old habits, that of cheating, had not yet
left him. Why it looks as though he has the unblushing impudence to
attempt to turn a Jack from the bottom, upon me, in the very blaze of
day, the very first deal; but the gentleman ought to know that he is now
in contact with one who knows how little things are done. Yes, he would
have it that the _debate_ was a lecture, and _Mr. Green's_ lecture, not
mine, and why? Why because if it be his lecture, all the cash would, as
a matter of course, be his. Also, is this not, I ask, the trick of a
perfect black-leg?
J.G. FREEMAN.
First Night, from the Times.
On Monday evening, at the Lecture-room of the Chinese Museum, the debate
between Mr. Green, the Reformed gambler, and Mr. J.G. Freeman of the
opposite side took place, in the presence of a very large and highly
respectable audience, partly composed of ladies.
Dr. Elder, at the appointed time, announced that the disputants were
upon the ground, and prepared to enter into the discussion of the
subject of gambling. He then introduced Mr. Freeman to the meeting.
Mr. F. said his antagonist and himself had settled the preliminaries,
and in regard to the proceeds of the debates, it had been agreed that
Mr. Green should receive those of the two first meetings, and that Mr.
Freeman should receive the returns of the third meeting, provided, on
motion, a large majority of those present were in favour of it.
He would not attempt to disguise his real feelings from his hearers, and
the gratification he experienced in having the opportunity of speaking,
for once in his life, to an audience composed of men of intelligence and
integrity. He well knew the difficulties under which he laboured, being
unused to speaking in public, and surrounded as he was in the community
by the reverend gentlemen and the press, who were avowedly opposed to
him, and who had thrown their bomb-shells and Congreve rockets liberally
at the gambling fraternity, without mercy, but he regarded these weapons
as harmless, for they had fallen at his feet without inflicting a single
wound.
Mr. F. then turned to the consideration of the laws making gambling a
penal offence, and particularly referred to the act of Assembly passed
by the last legislature, which he denounced as unjust and impolitic. He
did not appear for the purpose of defending gambling, but to speak a
word in favour of those who had been represented to be the worst
members of society, and against whom the voice of proscription had been
raised. He contended that a man had a constitutional right to do what he
pleased with that which was legally his own property, and all laws
passed to abridge that right ought to receive public reprehension.
He was at a loss to understand why Mr. Green should have taken so active
a part in the passage of the law at Harrisburg. It had been said that
gambling must be checked, and in order to put it down, you must make it
a penitentiary offence. He regarded this as an egregious error.
Gambling, he was convinced, ought to be treated in the same manner as
Intemperance--by moral suasion--and not by passing a law that puts a man
in the penitentiary for exercising a legal right. But there were fewer
gamblers than drunkards, and the former had no influence at the
ballot-box.
He denied the statements of Mr. Green, that young men had been enticed
to gambling-houses. They invariably went there of their own accord, and
he related instances in which the relatives and friends of young men
were called upon by gamblers, to exercise proper authority in
restraining them from visiting such places.
He alluded to the excessive penalty attached to the law, and argued that
it would never be enforced, there being no inducement for the police to
detect the offenders; and that from the face of the law is shown, that
it was not made for the punishment of wealthy gamblers, but the poor
itinerant wretches who had no local habitation. These being birds of
passage, he questioned whether they would remain long enough in one
place to be caught, while the rich operator and speculator would be
permitted to go on unmolested, in his gilded career of depredations
upon his fellow man.
Mr. Green then arose and expressed his surprise that any individual
could have the effrontery to stand up before an intelligent body of
citizens, a part of that constituency, from whom the legislature of the
state had derived its authority, and denounce a law which had not only
been passed with entire unanimity of the members of that body, but which
had met with general favour from the people. He then referred to the act
of Assembly, and made some explanatory remarks upon it. He ably defended
the law from the remarks of his opponent, in regard to its vagueness and
insufficiency. On the whole, he regarded it as a good one. It could be
effectively put in force, and was calculated to crush the evil of
gambling.
He said he had no wish to conceal from the people his former habits and
mode of getting a livelihood, but on the contrary, had repeatedly, in
public, represented himself as being a wary gambler, and acknowledged
that he had done, perhaps, as much with cards in a professional way as
any man claiming the same amount of information in regard to them.
He then passed to a review of the terrible consequences of gambling, and
showed that those who became addicted to it, acquired a passion for
play, that predominated over every other feeling, and closed up the
springs of affection and sympathy in the human heart.
These facts he forcibly and eloquently illustrated by relating some
painful occurrence, which came under his observation. On one occasion he
was playing with a party, one of whom was losing his money very
rapidly. In the height of a game, his family physician entered the
room, and saying that it was with much difficulty that he found his
whereabouts, informed him that his daughter had been seized with extreme
illness. The gambler replied, that he would return to his home very
soon.
The doctor left, but not long after returned with the gambler's wife,
who implored him to come home, as the girl was dying. He desired the
doctor to lead his wife from the room, with the solemn promise to follow
them; which promise he seemed to have forgotten the next instant, so
deeply was he interested in the play, and he remained at the
gaming-table. In a little while after, the doctor returned and told him
his daughter was dead. For the moment, he appeared to be greatly
affected, but he still sat at the faro table of that h----l, and when he
arose from it he was a ruined man.
The man has since reformed, and Mr. Green said that when he last saw
him, in Baltimore, he attempted to describe the feelings which rent his
breast, after he had realized the sad events of that night. His first
desire was to commit suicide, but the hand of Providence stayed his arm,
and by His interposition he was enabled to turn from the vice, and shun
the society of those who practise it.
Mr. Green re-asserted that all he had stated about plans being laid to
catch the unwary, by gamblers, was strictly true. He had been cognisant
of plottings of the fraternity, and in speaking of some individual who
was about to be plucked, the common expression among them was, "that he
was not ripe yet." The remarks of Mr Green were listened to with great
attention by the audience.
Mr. Freeman followed, and after briefly replying to the points of the
previous speaker, said that it was his intention, at the next meeting,
to prove that all species of speculation is, properly speaking,
gambling.
The Rev. John Chambers concluded. He confessed his disappointment. He
expected to find a man here who would attempt to defend gambling, but he
congratulated the audience that no such thing had been attempted, Mr.
Freeman having acknowledged gambling to be an evil.
The Reverend gentleman's remarks were of a general character, and in the
course of their delivery he upheld the law of the state, and unsparingly
denounced those for whose detection and punishment it was passed.
First Night, from the Saturday Evening Post.
The discussion on gambling, between Mr. Green the Reformed gambler, and
Mr. Freeman, of the "Profession," which has been looked forward to with
so much interest, opened upon Monday evening. The audience generally,
however, were rather disappointed, inasmuch as Mr. Freeman stated that
he did not come there to defend gambling, but only to prove the folly
and injustice of attempting to put it down by making its practice, _by
professional gamblers_, an offence punishable by imprisonment in the
penitentiary. But although Mr. Freeman made this avowal, he evidently
did attempt in various parts of the discussion to defend gambling--not,
however, as a thing good in itself, but as being no worse than many
other practices which society tolerates, and which no man loses his
reputation, or is in danger of imprisonment, for engaging in.
We have no scruple in confessing, that we were much interested in Mr.
Freeman. He appears to be one of a singular class of men, some one of
whom may be found in nearly every pursuit, however dishonourable--men of
keen and subtle minds, and of as much goodness and honesty of purpose as
is possible in the life which they have chosen, or into which perhaps
they have been in a degree forced. In the course of his remarks, he made
one allusion to his own history, which while it told as much as any
thing that was said in the course of the debate against gambling, opened
unto us, in a degree, the secret of his present position. He said that
when he was a young man, he had lost his all at the gaming table, and
that from that blow he had never recovered--"_it had broken his heart_."
And yet, strange anomaly, he now not only makes his living by gambling,
but stands up before the world as its defender.
But let us look a little further into Mr. Freeman's arguments. He did
not state them very plainly, being evidently unaccustomed to public
speaking, and, as the English say, to "thinking on his legs," but if we
are not mistaken, he reasons to his own heart as follows. Gambling in
cards is not right _abstractly_, but it is the same in principle as
gambling in stocks, in breadstuffs, in merchandise, in land, or in any
thing else. None of these are right, but they are necessary fruits of
the folly and wickedness of men, and inevitable in the present condition
of society. "I make my living, I know," he probably says, "from the
weakness and wickedness of my fellow men; but so do the physician, the
judge, the lawyer, the jailer, and the hangman." If we are not mistaken,
in this way does Mr. Freeman make out a clear case to his own
conscience; and to some small extent he is right in what he asserts. To
gamble with cards is the same principle as to gamble with stocks, or any
thing else--the difference is only one of degree; but although the
gambler and the judge both live, in a certain sense, off of the vices of
their fellow men, the difference is very evident between him whose
business conduces to increase those vices, and his whose noble office it
is to lessen them.
But Mr. Freeman complains that, while the gambler with cards is
proscribed by society, and branded with all marks of shame, and laws
passed to imprison him if found practising his art, the gambler in
stocks is neither reviled nor imprisoned. At the rank injustice, as he,
in our opinion, honestly believes it, of this course on the part of
society, he can hardly contain his indignation. Those "uncouth
gestures," as one of our contemporaries designates them, were not in our
opinion intended for effect, but were the natural language of
uncontrollable indignation at what he believes to be the rank in justice
of society, which he could not adequately express in words. The audience
laughed, but the speaker was far from laughing--a perfect tempest of
conflicting emotions, it seemed to us, was agitating his bosom. Strange
as it may sound to our readers, he evidently thought that his cause was
just, and wanted to make it appear so, not to the gamblers and their
friends, hundreds of whom were present, and ready at any moment with
their applause, but to the crowd of intelligent, virtuous men and women,
in whose audience he stood. We saw the breaking out of this feeling in
the half-contemptuous manner in which he alluded to the tastes of
gamblers in general, as contrasted with his own--"he did not keep the
company of gamblers; he had nothing to say against them, but his tastes
were different."
But is it unjust to punish the gambler with cards by imprisonment and
public proscription, while the gambler in stocks, &c., whose crime is
the same in principle, though not in degree, goes unwhipt of justice?
Undoubtedly it is, for it is no reason that one vice should go
unpunished, because another is able to escape for the present. Mr.
Freeman's argument is very good, so far as it applies to inflicting upon
the gambler in stocks the same penalty as on himself; but the law of
Progress, and the best interests of society, demand that these things
should never be allowed to work backwards. For the way society advances,
is simply this--the worst manifestations of vice are first proscribed,
and then their proscription is made a stepping-stone to demolish others.
For instance--we attack gambling with cards, the worst manifestation of
the gambling principle; we make it abhorrent to the moral sense of the
world; we so confound it, and justly too, with robbery, that future
generations shall grow up in that faith, and all the efforts of
interested sophistry never be able henceforward to separate them to the
popular apprehension. Having done this, in the course of some fifty or
one hundred years, certain dealings in stocks, for instance, are called
in question. If they can be proved to be rightly described by the phrase
"GAMBLING in Stocks," the battle is half-won. For the proscription of
the worst kind of gambling has given a vantage ground from which to
attack the principle of gambling wherever found. And this, we say, is
the only law of progress.
Another ground taken by Mr. Freeman was, that "a man has a right to do
what he chooses with his own, if in so doing he does not injure anybody
else." In a limited sense, this is true, doubtless--but he does injure
somebody else if he fails to perform his duties to his family or to his
country. For instance, he has no right to commit suicide. But gambling
cannot be done without injuring somebody else, as it takes two to play
at it--leaving out of view the injury done to society at large, as Mr.
Green has shown in his various works on the subject. But there is no
necessity in dwelling upon this point--it cannot be defended for a
moment.
As to Mr. Green's part in the discussion, it is not necessary to say
much. He has our confidence and sympathy. We consider his present course
a most noble one, and wish him all success in his efforts to overthrow
the abominable vice from whose clutches he has come forth a reformed
man.
We have taken up considerable room with this subject, because we feel
great interest in both parties engaged in the discussion. Did Mr.
Freeman appear to be only a bold, bad man, we should hardly have wasted
a single paragraph upon him or his arguments. But he is evidently a man
of considerable information and talent, and to all appearance, strange
as it may sound, of much sincerity and cross-grained honesty. That he
may be led to forsake his present pursuits, before his gray hairs shall
have gone down to a dishonoured grave, is our fervent wish and prayer.
From Scott's Weekly.
The interesting question between Mr. J. H. Green, the Reformed Gambler,
and Mr. J.G. Freeman, as to the rights of gambling, was discussed in the
Lecture-room of the Museum Building, on Monday evening last. A large
audience attended, and notwithstanding the zeal of Mr. Freeman more than
once carried him a little beyond the limits of propriety, the whole
passed off pleasantly.
The announcement in the papers was not adhered to, which created some
dissatisfaction; but then the speeches of Mr. Freeman were of themselves
well worth the price of admission. He did not defend gambling--he could
not, he said, pretend to defend it--he only meant to deny the sweeping
aspersions of its foes. He spoke at great length, and sometimes his
logic was quite ingenious.
Mr. Green confined himself to a few facts, leaving the more minute part
of the discussion for a subsequent evening.
The Rev. John Chambers closed the proceedings by a few timely remarks,
in which he reviewed what he considered lawful and unlawful
pursuits--among these latter, he hoped to see the time that every vender
of intoxicating liquors would be placed in the same catalogue that
gamblers are by the recent law--imprisonment. He then referred to the
decorum of the audience, and expressed a hope that all the future
discussions would be listened to in the same spirit--that all the truth
possible may be elicited in reference to that terrible vice--gambling.
From the Inquirer.
The long-talked-of debate upon gambling and its tendencies, was
commenced last evening in the Lecture-room of the Chinese Museum. The
audience was large, and deep interest was manifested in the discussion.
Aboard of highly respectable gentlemen presided as Moderators, and Dr.
Elder officiated as chairman.
Mr. Freeman, the challenger, opened the debate, and proposed that the
question be met in a categorical form, thus:--Were the laws of the
different states which make gambling a Penitentiary offence unjust and
impolitic? Were they formed in good policy or not?
Mr. Freeman considered himself as honoured in being permitted to speak
before the meeting on the question. Fearful odds were against him; all
the ranks of battle were on the other side. The clergy, who were
accustomed to public speaking, were against him--as well as the editors
and the press. In the war now raging, the climate--the sickly climate,
was more dangerous than the shells and shot of the enemy--and in this
case, the sickly climate was the prejudice, the prejudice of opinion,
which was against the cause he espoused, or rather defended. Mr. F. also
referred to other influences against him. Mr. F. contended that even, if
the states in which such laws were passed, disliked the vice of
gambling--it was no reason why they should pass laws that were unjust
and impolitic.
Mr. F. contended, in opposition to such laws, that a man had a perfect
right to do what he pleased with his own things. Any legislation to the
contrary was tyranny. More mischief and immorality would result from
such laws than from the vice itself--for it was a violation of one of
the rights of man on the mere score of expediency. He contended,
therefore, that men had a perfect right to do what they pleased with
their own things, so long as they did not interfere with the rights of
others. A drunkard could not drink without disturbing other people--why
not make his a Penitentiary offence? Yet a gambler was considered a
Penitentiary offender, though he did not interfere with the rights of
others.
What were speculators in railroads, &c. &c.?--Why many of them gamblers
on the largest scale!
In noticing the temptations of gambling, Mr. F. said that he and other
gamblers had often warned youths against entering upon that dangerous
course, and had thus saved them from ruin.
Mr. F. argued against the law recently enacted at Harrisburg against
gambling, on the ground that it was partial and unjust.
One of the strangest things was, that a man who had been imprisoned, had
been an outcast himself, should be the first to betray, and to place
others in the same situation, and send them to the Penitentiary. Yet
such was the case with the gentleman who had come from Ohio to
Harrisburg to assist in obtaining the passage of the law against
gambling.
Mr. Green replied, and defended the law in question, as it was passed in
Pennsylvania; and read a section, in which gamblers, without a fixed
residence, were, upon conviction, to be imprisoned, &c.; and Mr. G. said
that although no games were mentioned, yet all gambling games were
included. Mr. G. admitted that he had been a gambler for many years, and
had done much evil to the community--as much as most evil men--but he
was now, he hoped, reformed. Mr. G. then contended that several
gambling-houses and tables had been closed under this law--and surely
this was a great advantage to the public--surely such closing of
gaming-houses had saved many persons from ruin.
Mr. Green gave much experience of his gambling life, and contended that
principles of honour were not common among gamblers. Gambling was a
principle of robbery--of robbery from beginning to end. If gambling was
right--why, Mr. Green would ask--did the former speaker persuade young
men not to come into gambling-houses? Mr. Green described a splendid
gambling-house in Calvert street, Baltimore, and the snares of robbery
laid for the unwary--and the method adopted to entrap a rich and unwary
citizen. The revelations were truly startling, and displayed a painful
instance of the _"facilis descensus averni"_--a father whose feelings
were blunted, and hardly to be re-awakened even by the death of a
beloved daughter. And this was but one instance out of thousands, in
which the sum of $1200, $1500, and $2000 had been lost at various times,
and a fatal, fascinating infatuation contracted.
Mr. Freeman resumed, and again contended for the right of any man to
gamble--that he had a right to do what he would with his own--and that a
law was unfair which punished this one vice, and let other and greater
vices alone. It was cowardly legislation. A gambler was said to have no
home, and would not be missed, if he were sent to prison; but send a man
of property, of standing to prison for some one of _his_ vices, and
there would soon be a fuss in the wigwam. Mr. F. was very severe upon
the great body of editors, for following servilely public opinion,
without courage or independence to express a manly opinion of their own.
Mr. F. said that all ministers were not good men--there were a few
exceptions--neither should all gamblers, in fairness, be considered as
scoundrels. He, Mr. F. as a gambler, never would admit his inferiority
to those individuals who, without labour, gained money and circumvented
others by extensive and fraudulent schemes of speculation.
The Rev. John Chambers summed up with great eloquence and ability, and
said that he was disappointed--he had expected a defence and vindication
of gambling as an _honourable_ profession--but he was glad to find that
the gentleman who had spoken, Mr. Freeman, had not even attempted to
advocate gambling as truthful or honest.
Mr. Chambers considered all dealing fair, in which a man received a
_quid pro quo_--but whether a man cheat at cards or in the sale of a
bale of dry goods, he was equally a scoundrel. If Mr. Freeman would make
it appear that gambling was a fair business, he (Mr. C.) would not wish
it to be a Penitentiary offence; but if gambling was, as Mr. Green had
shown, a system of robbery--why then, it ought to be a Penitentiary
offence. Mr. C. said that Mr. Freeman had behaved honourably--for he had
said to young men--"Do not come into this place!" And why? Because it
was the road to ruin.
Mr. C. regretted that Mr. Freeman should have made several scriptural
allusions. No virtuous man would ever support gambling--for it gave no
equivalent either in money or reputation 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 necessary to go into a defence of
his motives in reply, but appeared to say, "Here I am,--I come to
denounce a habit of pestiferous corrupting influence, of which I have
practical knowledge; I will stand or fall by the position which I have
taken,--leaving the future to show the world whether or not I am
honest." Freeman spoke again after Green concluded, and very much in the
same style as in the early part of the evening.
After he had concluded, the Rev. John Chambers made an address, which
was marked with strong argument and a fine Christian-like tone. Mr.
Green then said a few words, and the meeting adjourned to Thursday
evening, at the same place, when the discussion is to be resumed. There
doubtless will be a large attendance. No subject could be more
interesting to the public, and the agitation of none can exercise a
better moral influence.
From the North American.
A good-humoured illustration of the right of every one to say what he
pleases, took place at the Lecture-room of the Museum last evening. Mr.
Freeman, an uncouth man, who gesticulates as if he was mending shoes,
but who has naturally no inconsiderable endowment of brain and nerve,
delivered himself of a tirade against everybody in general, and against
the press and clergy in particular. He complained that everybody was
against him--compared the clergy to Gen. Scott and his regulars; the
editors to bomb-shells and Congreve rockets, and what else we know not;
himself individually to Gen. Taylor, and the race of the poor persecuted
gamblers to our Saviour--who, he said, like them, had not where to lay
his head!
The impious jumble of fustian and blasphemy was accompanied in the
delivery by every species of grimace and buffoonery, and a fierceness of
dramatic action and posture far more ludicrously affecting than the
classic attitudes of Gen. Tom Thumb, who was defying the lightning, as
Ajax, dying like the Gladiator, and taking snuff like Napoleon, in the
room overhead. At the bottom of all this ridiculous exhibition, which
drew repeated shouts of laughter from the very large and respectable
audience, lay two principles upon which Mr. Freeman might have erected
an imposing argumentative structure. These were, that every man has a
right to do what he pleases with his own, so that he does not disturb
others; and that laws punishing professional gamblers and letting
citizens go free, are unjust.
Mr. Green, without going into the metaphysics of the question, showed by
some very plain and straightforward remarks the fraud and villany of
professional gambling, and proved that it was throughout a _system_ of
deliberate robbery. This being the case, it follows, of course, that the
general good of the community, which has ever been acknowledged
paramount, requires it to be put down. Thus satisfactorily stood the
question when we left, and we do not see how it can fairly be removed
from this broad ground. It is evident that Mr. Green is a sincere man,
and we firmly believe that he is engaged in a good work.
SECOND NIGHT.
From the Inquirer.
The discussion between Mr. Green, the Reformed gambler, and Mr. Freeman
in opposition, was continued yesterday evening, in the Lecture-room of
the Chinese Museum, Leonard Jewell, Esq. in the chair.
Mr. Freeman contended that not one of his arguments, on the previous
evening, had been answered by Mr. Green, but anecdotes and doleful
stories had been told instead. Mr. F. defended his allusions from
Scripture, and said that they had been misconstrued; that he only meant
to say that the Saviour of mankind had recommended us to do good, and to
return good for evil; but some of the clergy had not followed the golden
rule in this matter, for punishment and the Penitentiary had been
recommended by them as a cure for gambling. As it was known that he (the
speaker) played, he came only to defend gambling as far as truth went,
but no farther--there he would stop.
Mr. Freeman complained that Mr. Green had classed _all_ gamblers as men
of the worst character--as if they were thieves or counterfeiters,
whereas Mr. G. knew that he could mention many who were incapable of
doing any thing mean--men who would denounce a counterfeiter as soon as
any one in that room. Mr. Freeman related a story of a fraudulent trick,
by which a large sum of money had been fraudulently obtained, and its
recovery prevented by force--one individual, who was named, menacing
with a bowie-knife; and Mr. F. said of the getter-up of the
plan--pointing to Mr. Green--"as Nathan said unto David, there sits the
man!"
Mr. Green admitted that it might be so--that it was so.
Mr. Freeman said that he knew Mr. Green's friends had a reply to cover
all such things--because he was a reformed man--Mr. F. hoped it was so,
but he really had some little doubt.
Mr. F. distinguished between deep play, which he likened to the
_strategie_ of generals in the field, the one to mislead the other, and
open, undisguised cheating, which he denounced. Mr. F. referred to
several distinguished men who gambled--and to several well-known
gamblers--and he defied Mr. Green to say that any one he had named would
or could be guilty of a mean action.
There was in the world a certain amount of wealth--the many of mankind
were (the industrious) producers--but he held that all men, speculators,
who circumvented others by their wits, living without work, were in
point of fact--_gamblers_. If a man were to go into the street and gain
$3000 in a morning by a stock or other speculation--why, as surely as we
lived, somebody lost that money--aye, and by gambling on the largest
scale. Men who lost their money at a gaming-table went there to win
money of the gamblers--but generally lost their own. Their object was to
put the gambler's money in their own pockets; and when they were
disappointed, they exclaimed against gamblers. Gamblers lived on the
depravity of men; if men were not depraved, gamblers would have no
chance; but they were encouraged by the depravity of others. Mr. F.
condemned and would punish cheating, whether by gamblers or other
speculators.
Mr. Green did not wish to say any thing personally against any of the
men or gamblers who had been named by Mr. F. Some were benevolent
men--but one or two he had named were men without heart. He (Mr. G.)
knew several gamblers, amateurs and professional men, who were
straightforward in their gambling transactions. He did not desire to
hurt the feelings of any of these individuals--he attacked not men but
vice--and he contended that gambling was a system of robbery, from
beginning to end. That it was that he contended for--and that, he hoped,
he had already shown. Mr. Green admitted that Mr. Freeman's story of the
scheme gotten up, bowie-knife, &c., was in the main correct. If meeting
contracts was honest--why then, many gamblers might be called honest. He
did not mean to say that such HONEST gamblers would put their hands in a
man's pocket and steal money--no--they would not do that.
But he would say what they would do;--they would sit up all night, have
suppers, wine and spirits set out to tempt men, and they would play with
any that came; and though some such customers were known or suspected to
have obtained the money they played with by robbery, yet he never knew
that the gamblers had ever refused to allow such men to play, so long as
they had money. Mr. Green described several snares that were practised
by gamblers, particularly one at New Orleans, called the "broker." He
hoped some of the gamblers of this city would reform as soon as the new
law went into effect. He had already heard of some having turned
collectors, policemen, &c.--but he doubted their reform if they were
turned over to the police--for though there were some very good
policemen in this city, he could confidently say also there were some
spotted ones.
Mr. Green considered the bowling-alleys and billiard rooms as the very
bane of the city--leading men on step by step to the vices of gambling
and drunkenness. Mr. Green stated that he had never met with a gambler
in his life, who played honestly, and got his living by playing cards
honestly--for all he had ever known would take advantage,
sometimes--which perhaps the world might call cheating. Mr. Green
practically illustrated with a pack of cards the modes of taking
advantage, (cheating in plain English,) that were truly surprising. Mr.
G. said that such things were done by gamblers, called _honourable_, and
if any one had charged such men with dishonesty, why a duel, or worse,
might have been the consequence.
On one occasion, he (Mr. Green) had been cheated out of several hundred
dollars by a brother gambler. He knew it, but lost his money and said
nothing--at length, he found out the method of cheating--and went home
and set up all night by way of studying a cheat that would recover his
money and more. He succeeded at last, and went and won all the money of
his antagonist and party--in fact, he won enough to break the whole
party. Mr. Green then showed by cards how he had been engaged in winning
(by tricks) money from a planter in Louisiana.
Mr. Freeman replied, and contended that Mr. Green had referred to only a
few mean gamblers--and by his inference charged their practices upon the
whole body. But our limited space warns us to be brief. Mr. Freeman only
contended that a gambler was honest in a relative point of view--as
honest as other men who in trade or otherwise, or in speculation, did
things as bad or worse than gamblers. Mr. F. related anecdotes to show
that persons charged with faults and crimes were almost always condemned
by public opinion, and their faults and crimes exaggerated. Mr. F.
stated that in former times, the keepers of gaming-houses in New Orleans
paid heavy licenses, and were subject to ruinous fines if they cheated
in the smallest degree.
Mr. F. contended that cheating at cards was decidedly a disadvantage to
the gambler--because, if he lost his character as a fair man, people
would not play with him, and so cheating was to him a loss: on the
principle of a man in England, who said he would give a hundred thousand
dollars for a character. "Why?" asked his friends. "Because," replied
the first, "because I could gain two hundred thousand dollars by it!"
Mr. F. introduced several anecdotes. Mr. F. had heard several sensible
men in New Orleans say, that if gaming-houses there were licensed, there
would be little or no cheating, because those houses would be under the
police, and people could not then do as they now do in holes and
corners. On the principle of "Vice is a creature of such hateful mien,"
&c. &c., Mr. F. thought that Mr. Green, by showing and explaining some
of his tricks, would be likely to tempt some persons to practise such
tricks, if they wanted a little money; and on this point he would quote
Scripture, and say--"Lead us not into temptation!"
Mr. Freeman exhibited a capital trick on the cards, quite equal to some
of Mr. Green's. But, said Mr. F., all such things were nothing--for, in
gambling, playing on the square with fairness is the best policy. [Mr.
Green admitted Mr. Freeman's trick to be very superior--and it was at
length understood that at the next meeting (on Saturday night) several
of these mysteries would be shown on both sides.]
Mr. Green declared that he could show the principle of gambling to be a
hundred per cent. worse than stealing.
The debate was listened to with much interest, and we learn that it will
be closed to-morrow (Saturday) evening.
From the Evening Bulletin.
Messrs. Green and Freeman renewed their discussion last night, at the
Chinese Museum, in the presence of a crowded audience, Leonard Jewell,
Esq. in the chair. Mr. Freeman spoke first, and very _modestly_
contended that none of his arguments of the previous evening had been
answered by his opponent, but that, instead of this, painful anecdotes
and stories had been told. He had quoted Scripture only to show that
making stringent laws to punish gambling was contrary to the spirit of
our Saviour's teaching, viz. to return good for evil. This argument,
will, of course, apply to all laws for the punishment of crime. Freeman
went on to except to Green's wholesale denunciations of all gamblers; it
was well known that some were _honourable_ men. There were a few bad
ones, his opponent knew, and one, in particular, who on a certain
occasion drew a bowie-knife to prevent a sum of money, fraudulently
obtained, being returned to its proper owner. Green acknowledged that he
was the man to whom Freeman alluded. He would not deny that he had been
as guilty as the guiltiest.
Freeman continued by saying that he supposed his opponent would get over
this by saying he had reformed. Green looked assent.
Freeman justified gambling by business operations, which were the result
of chance, such as stock-jobbing; but we confess we cannot see where the
parallel begins, the one being a clear matter of chance on both sides,
the other, if Green's stories be true, which we firmly believe, all on
the side of the gambler, who cheats from the beginning to the ending of
his playing, what with tricks of the trade, marked cards, &c. Freeman
took the ground that gamblers were honest, and thus made out a better
case than the facts will sustain.
Mr. Green's reply was quiet and unaffected. He knew some gamblers who
were straightforward and honourable in their playing. But the majority
of the profession were dishonest, and the community was demoralized and
impoverished by them. He admitted the story about the bowie-knife. He
had never been disposed to conceal any of his wicked acts while one of
the _profession_. There was one point on which all gamblers were
unprincipled; they would play and win money of men they knew were
totally ignorant of the arts of card-playing. This was a fraud--it was
dishonest; a strong argument against the whole band, good or bad.
Mr. Green denounced bowling-alleys and billiard saloons. He then exposed
the tricks by which gamblers cheated, and in doing so interested the
audience very much.
Freeman's rejoinder was still to the end that some gamblers were honest
and honourable. He knew that there were rogues among gamblers, who
practised tricks, and he gave an excellent specimen of their adroitness,
in a trick which Mr. Green acknowledged was a capital one.
The debate was listened to throughout with great attention. It will be
resumed on Saturday evening.
THIRD NIGHT
From the Daily Sun.
On Saturday evening, the debate between Messrs. Green and Freeman, on
the subject of gambling, was resumed, in the Lecture-room of the Museum
building. There was a full audience in attendance, and towards the close
of the debate, the proceedings became intensely interesting.
At the appointed hour, Dr. Elder, the moderator, made a few remarks, by
way of opening the meeting, and introduced
Mr. Freeman, who, upon advancing to the table, said that he regarded it
as complimentary indeed, that he was permitted to proceed with the
discussion. Under all the circumstances, he considered it a great
compliment, that a highly intelligent audience should listen to one of
the proscribed fraternity. But friends, (said the speaker,) if the scene
of the discussion lay farther South, in the region of the spot where he
was born, he would not consider it so much of a compliment--he would not
make such a concession, even from the great Harry of the West down to my
fallen foe. In looking round the staging he observed new faces, and
missed those who had previously occupied their places--he had heard
those men had consulted their dignity, and any man (in the opinion of
the speaker) who thinks more of his dignity than his duty is not fit to
occupy the sacred desk. The arguments which he had brought forward on
the previous occasions have not been answered. Mr. Green has not even
attempted to do so, but he (the speaker) had found that a worthy
gentleman had entered the field, though not verbally, and endeavoured to
supply the place of his opponent. He would take the liberty to
compliment him--the distinguished editor of the Post--though he did not
know him, nor that such a paper as the Post was printed. That editor,
like many others whose prejudices overbalance their reason, had
misunderstood him. The speaker then indulged in a _critique_ on the
editorial, principally upon the ground which he had taken--that a man
has a right to do with his own things what he pleases, provided, in so
doing, he does not infringe upon the rights of others. On this point, it
appeared that the editor thought and argued differently, and Mr. Freeman
said, that in taking the above ground, he did not claim originality, for
it is a principle of law, as laid down in Blackstone, Paley, and
others--it is the language of great commentators, and upon it he would
stand or fall, and leave the distinguished editor to battle with those
men.
Some things, continued the speaker, may seem inconsistent at first,
which, upon examination, are not inconsistent. A thing may be legally
right and morally wrong, and whilst he could defend it legally, he could
not morally. For instance, suppose a rich man had two sons, both of whom
acted as sons should act, and the father in making out his will should
devise his whole estate to one son, and cut the other off, as they say
in England, with a shilling. Now, who would deny his right to do so if
it pleased him; who would say that it is not legally right?--no one. But
would it be morally right?--certainly not. What is morality?--love your
God, your neighbour, and yourself. And though he could defend the will
as legal, yet in a moral point of view he could condemn it as unnatural.
The editor of the Post (said the speaker) confounds gambling with
robbery, and what for?--that future generations may grow up in faith. It
is, said he, a settled principle of morality never to hoist false
colours, but to raise the standard of truth and defend it to the last.
(Applause.)
He remembered an anecdote: a physician was sent to attend a poor sick
boy, and when he arrived at the couch of pain and distress, he found it
necessary to administer a pill--a very nauseous dose. Said the
mother--"Doctor, it would be better to put a little sugar on it, and
then he can take it, and not know it's a pill." "No, madam," replied the
doctor, "it won't do to deceive him. Here, my son," said the
practitioner, "take this medicine and it will cure you," and the little
fellow swallowed it like a man. Thus it is with Mr. Green and the green
editor; they associate the gambler, without distinction, with assassins
and robbers. In doing so they are wrong; they do not speak the truth.
The speaker then proceeded to show how a young man may often be lured
into temptation--by representing gamblers as assassins, who, upon
acquaintance, he finds are apparently gentlemen, and he is induced to
think that he has been hitherto misled and deceived in regard to such
men. He then cultivates their acquaintance, and finally, through his own
depravity, he becomes worse and worse, until he is at last swallowed up
in the vortex of degradation. This is the result of employing
dishonourable measures to prevent him from visiting such places, or to
carry out honourable ends.
A man has a right to commit suicide, so far as propriety is concerned.
If he does not owe any thing, and feels it in his conscience that he
would like to die, he has a right to do so--but if that man owes five
dollars, he would certainly violate a moral principle by killing
himself, because he ought to live as long as he can to pay his debt. The
speaker once knew a man, in good circumstances, who was weary of
existence, and feeling disposed to take a journey to "that bourne whence
no traveller returns," committed suicide. There may be many who would
call it murder--but the community are murderers--they sometimes murder
in cold blood. But lately a man was taken to the gallows, and they hung
a young man because he had killed somebody else, and yet there are many
persons who believe this is right, and that suicide, such as the speaker
had selected, is wrong.
The speaker now proceeded to criticize the law relative to gambling,
passed at the recent legislature, in which he said that if a man has a
fixed place of residence and carries on a dry goods business, he might
gamble as much as should please him and the law would not take hold of
him. He would ask anybody to read the law understandingly and then deny
this round assertion. This act, said he, is bugbear--it is a disgrace as
it now stands, for it smacks of cowardice. The legislators, he presumed,
had a little sense, and they knew that some kind of a law must be
passed, and they were ingenious enough to know how to frame it to sound
well, and yet be comparatively powerless. They knew by such a statute
that _nolle prosequis_ could be entered--and solicitors make more
money--they well knew that there were many religious people among their
constituents, and it would not do for them to act singular, or else they
would find so short an account at the next ballot-box that they would
not be sent back. He would spurn such legislators and keep them for ever
in private life. (Applause.)
In conclusion, he said that he was decidedly an anti-gambler, and he did
not defend the subject morally. In order that he might enlighten the
people on the subject of gambling, he would give one lecture, in which
he would relate his experience, and promised that it should be the
richest and most interesting thing that could be listened to. He did not
want money. He would only ask enough to pay expenses of the room--the
ladies and the reverend clergy may come in gratis--all he wished was
that the truth should be told about gambling.
Mr. Green now took the stand, and said that it appeared to him that
there was something in the law which seemed to stick to his opponent,
Mr. Freeman. He complains that the Jaw is dull--that it is trash--a
bugbear, and heaps other similar epithets upon it, and yet he appears to
make considerable noise about it, and why should he attempt to ridicule
me, in connection with the law. Every man in this state knows that Mr.
Green himself could not pass the law without the aid of the legislature.
He (Mr. Freeman) goes on to take many other positions which he (the
speaker) could not understand, and therefore would not further allude to
them. He thought that if the young men were warned properly to keep
aloof from the gambling shops, and they should heed the warning, they
would escape a life of infamy. 'Tis true, a young man may go from the
parlour to a gambling-place. He will first find the gamblers
fascinating--rooms handsomely furnished--fine suppers given, and in
fact, every temptation may be set out to catch the unwary novice. The
gambler will tell him this reform is all priestcraft--you can see for
yourself that we (gamblers) are not the assassins which we are
represented to be--these reformers don't speak the truth. The young man
is blinded--he thinks he knows by this time all about the gamblers--but
in fact he knows nothing. He goes on by degrees, until becoming more
hardened, he does not fear to do that which would have made him recoil
with horror, in the outset. He may go to another city--carry letters of
introduction to prominent gamblers--forty other letters may get there
before him, putting the robbers on the look out, getting them to set
their stool-pigeons. The young man is trapped--he is enticed into a
gambling hell--don't call them sporting saloons or gambling-rooms, (said
the speaker,) but call them what they are, _hells_--he loses all his
money--his character is gone--he is ruined, and who then cares for
him--does the gambler?