CERTAIN CONDITIONS NECESSARY.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXIV, Issue 19, 10 May 1906, Page 4

CERTAIN CONDITIONS NECESSARY.

£ul for gambling to be conformable to the rajuirements of justice, certain well known conditions must be verified. First, the gambler must be in a position to justly alienate the stake which he exposes in the game. A game is a contract in which the players stipulate or agree that something shall be ceded to the winner as a prize. It is iqHiite clear that I am not at liberty to bargain to cede that which J have no right to alienate. Hence a man has no right to risk in gaming or betting that which ia not his own. The shop assistant may not expose hia master's money ; nor the bank clerk the money of his bank. It is not enough, however, that the gambler be the owner of the money which he stakes. He must also have the free administration or disposal of it. And even if one be the owner and have the administration of money, still one is not fie« to risk it in bjetting or jjamjtfi/ng if justice alrbady claims it for other purposes, as, for example, if it should be required for the paying of one's just debts. In the second place the game ought to be freely entered into. 1C anypne Lly force or fear induces another to gamble, he does him an injury and is guilty of sin. So far, I think, all theologians are agreed. But it is one thing to say that he is guilty of sin, and quite another thing to say that he is bound to restitution. We may therefore asik the further question ;If he who coerced his opponent to play should happen to win, is he Uoimd to make restitution ? Cardinal Lugo and others hold that he is. They say that he is responrsible not only for the injury done Ho his adversary, but for the entire loss which results from it), that therefore he is bound to make good the entire loss ; and that this he can do only by making restitution. Many 'eminent theologians take an opposite view. Among them, even so great an authority as St. Aiphonsus. They deny that the loss sustained is the effect of the injury. They hold that it is to be attributed to the ill-luck of the loser, or to the superior skill of the winner. Though the argument, as drawn out by St. Aiphonsus, \ery much commends itself to my mind, I need not develop it here. St. Aiphonsus admits that the losor has a right to rescind or cancel the contract which he made while under the influence of fear, and that, consequently, if he demands restitution, the winner ia bound to make it. Consequently, when determining obligations', Lugo and he arrive at practically the same result. FREE FROM CHEATING. Tho third condition is that our gambling should be free from cheating. ' A clear fire, -a clean hearth, ,and the ligor of the game, 1 was Sarah Battle's idea of vhist. As lam treating the question from a moral and not from an aesthetic standpoint, I may omit to say anything about the necessity ox foecomiing.ne.ss of a clean ifireside >; but the rigors of the game are necessary, at least to the extent that we shall not violate the recognised rules which govern the particular game which we may be playing. However, just as there are recognised rules which all are supposed to abide by, so there are recognised wiles and stratagems which may be practised without any violation of ,justioe. If Bret Harte's " Heathen Chinee ' had been content ' to smile as he sat at< the table with a smile that was child-liko and bland,' and to deceive his opponents by talking of the game ' he did not understand,' I should hesitate about compelling him to make refit itutiont. When the Heathen Chinee pretended to understand euchre only imperfectly, he did nothing more than your conscientious Christian does every day. He, too, not unfraiojuently affects an imperfect knowledge of the game in order to lure his opponents to play for heavy stakes ; but such affectation of ignorance does not, and ought not to deceive anyone. But assuredly the evidence contained in the following two verses would constrain me to make the wily Oriental disgorge :—: — But the hands that were played By that heathen Chinee, And the points that he made Were quite) frightful to seeTill at last he put down a right bower, Which the same Nye had dealt unto me. In his sleeves, which were long, He had twenty-four jacks — Which was coming it strong, Yet I state but the facts ; And we found on his nails, which were taper, What is frqqfuent in tapers— that's wax. These- lines disclose enormities which are obviously onposied to all recognised rules. And he who violates the recognised rules and thereby wins, makes him6elf liable to restitution. He must restore not only the

slakes which ha has fraudulently won from his opponent but he must also compensate his opponent for the hope of winning which he would have had if the game had been fairly played. That hope had a money value It was filched or stolen, as 1 may say, by the fraud of the winner ; and, therefore, he has through his own malice saddled himself with the duty of making compensation. EQUALITY. The last condition which I shall mention is the necessity of equality. Each of the players should have a hope of winning, and -each should run a risk of losing. As writers on morals are themselves at variance au to what constitutes oi destroys this equality, I will not discuss the matk-r at any length. One important point I will mention. Cardinal Lugo and others hold that if a man who is conscious of his notable superiority wins from one who is notably his inferior, this destroys the necessary equality and the winner is bound to restitution. On the other hand, Father UaUermi ,( BalleiriniPalmieri, n. 599) and others deny any such obligation They argue that cither the loter knew or did not know beforehand the notable superiority of his adversary. If he knew it, we are to presume that he willingly took the risk ot losing ; and, therefore, deprived himself of the right of claiming restitution. If he did not know his adAersary's notable superiority, and yet entered into the game, he oiught to attribute his loss to his awn rashness. p These slated with what clearness I could command, are the conclusions 'whkh I have arrived at in in\ estimating the question whether gambling is intrinsically and essentially wicked. I can hardly hope that those who object to May-poles and Morris-dances and who unconditionally condemn gamibling as in itself wrong, will acoopt my conclusions. Well I may be permuted to say m self-defence that, though I have not always given chapter and verse, 1 have never once Jost sight of my guides. So far as I am aware my paper contains nothing which has not the sanction of the most eminent tflu/ologians in the Catholic Church At the beginning I stated many of the dangers to which gambling exposes its votaries. Everybody will admit that a man may s:n by excess in gaming It is no loss true that a man may sin, though not so eaaily by detect. As it is against urbanity to show ourselves morose and chunMi towards others, ao it is an exercise of urbanity to show ourselves compliant and bland if only we can do no without violating some higher virtue. I should ne\er have thought of writing on the morality of gambling if I had not been leijucsted to do so by one who.se icquest I deemed as equal to a command At tho sumo tune lam R iad off the opportunity of stating the substance of what Catholic theologians teach us in this matter. In this, as in everything which relates to legitimate freedom and recreation, their humane breadth of view is in marked contrast with the costive and* bilious asceticism of many cf our social reformers. Vl hat I have written applies not only to games, but also, in due proportion, to betting on horse races, boat races, and other such more or less fortuitous events. I have not attempted to determine the point where gambling becomes excessive. This depends on qjuite a \anety of circumstances, as, for example, on the opulencs of the man who indulu.es in these practices But speaking generally, ao long as a man devotes to gambling only a part of his superfluous wealth and so long as he does not expose himself to the neglecting of any duty, I see nothing in the gambling contract to merit the unmeasured condemnation with whioh.it is so often visited. Though I have not dealt in detail with the many objections against gambling, I hope and believe that I have given such principles, culled from CathoMc theologians, 'as will enable my readers to find for themsehes an easy and satisfactory solution of thoa? objections. They do not prove that gamjbjling is intrinsically arad essentially wicked, but only that gambling is unjustifiable whenever it is carried to excess. But there is no fear that it shall be carried to excess if the limitations and conditions set forth by Catholic moralists arc faithfully adhered to.