The Post had contended, in opposition to Mr. Freeman's maxim that a man had a right to do what he pleased with his own things, so long as he did not interfere with others, that gambling did interfere with the rights of others; for example, it might prevent men from paying their debts, or it might prompt them to commit suicide, either of which was a wrong to society. Mr. Freeman contended, nevertheless, that a man had such a right--certainly he had, if he were not in debt--but if he were, it was then his duty to live as long as he could, to endeavour to pay his debts. Mr. Freeman illustrated his points by allusions to Gen. Taylor and Gen. Jackson--adding, "let the truth be told if the heavens fall."
Mr. Freeman again opposed the new law passed against gambling--for, he said, it was so shaped, that if a man of property gambled, he could not be troubled, but a poor, itinerant gambler could be punished. Mr. Freeman read the law in proof--wherein a difference certainly appeared to be made between those who had something to live upon, and a merely itinerant gambler--the latter liable to imprisonment if he kept a gaming house, of from one to five years. Indeed, "being without a fixed residence" is one of the features of the law. Such a law appeared to Mr. Freeman as if, for example, a man of standing were to go into a store and steal, he would be let off--- whereas, if an itinerant man were to steal, he must be punished with years of imprisonment. The cases were parallel, and yet, it seemed to him that a man of good standing ought to be punished more severely than the other, because his temptations were not so great. Such a law, so partial, was a disgrace to the statute-book. From what he knew of legislators, he thought they had made such a law, knowing that gambling was a bad vice, as a bugbear, to deter people from engaging in it--and, in some cases, because they were afraid of public opinion, and servilely followed the crowd, lest at some future time they might lose their election.
Mr. Freeman said that he considered himself as an anti-gambler--but injustice had been done to gamblers, and he had defended them as far as he consistently could--and if an audience would meet him on Tuesday night, he would give them an anti-gambling lecture. He differed with Mr. Green.