Equality.

The last condition which I shall monition 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 as to what constitutes or destroys this equality, I will not discuss the matter 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 Ballerini (Ballerini-Palmieri, n. 599) and others deny any such obligation. They argue that either the loser 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 of losing; and, therefore, deprived himself of the right of claiming restitution. If he did not know his adversary's notable superiority, and yet entered into the game, he ought to attribute his loss to his own rashness.

These stated with what clearness I could command, are the conclusions 'which I have arrived at in investigating 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 gambling as in itself page 21 wrong, will accept my conclusions. Well, I may be permitted to say in self defence that, though I have not always given chapter and verse, I have never once lost sight of my guides. So far as I am aware, my paper contains nothing which has not the sanction of the most eminent theologians 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 sin by excess in gaming. It is no less true that a man may sin, though not so easily, by defect. As it is against urbanity to show ourselves morose and churlish towards others, So it is an exercise of urbanity to show ourselves compliant and bland, if only we can do So without violating some higher virtue.

I should never have thought of writing on the morality of gambling if I had not been requested to do so by one whose request I deemed as equal to a command. At the same time I am glad 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 of our social reformers.' What 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 quite a variety of circumstances, as, for example, on the opulence of the main who indulges in these practices. But speaking generally, so 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 which 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 Catholic theologians, 'as will enable my readers to find for themselves an easy and satisfac- page 22 tory solution of those objections. They do not prove that gambling is intrinsically and 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 are faithfully adhered to.