winning, and many a good man becomes a scoundrel through it. " Two or three further conversations with my professional friend, and a careful analysis of the chances in fio-ures, convinced me that he is ritjjht as to the impossibility of winning by systematic play. Any system may win for a time, but all must lose eventually. In a game of pure chance, luck is everything; and in the long run that must equalize itself. In the meantime the bank is gaining a certain steady profit, and the maximum stake is placed so low as to prevent any extraordinary event from inflicting a serious loss upon it. I have discovered that I am no gambler, since I do not care to play unless I think I have a certainty of winning. I can quite understand any one being interested in constructing various systems to play by until the discovery comes that none are infallible. I have made several, and examined many more, each of which at first seemed as if they must win forever; but, fortunately, instead of testing them by actual experience, I showed them to my professional friend, who soon demonstrated their weak points. He says that when I thoroughly understand the chances, I shall leave off fitrurinor. He savs the very fact of a chance being even makes it impossible to beat it, otherwise it wouldn't be even. It is a great pity. It would be such an easy way of making a fortune if one could sit down for a few hours a day, and, without risk or labor, make a certain sum. I don't see why there should be such a prejudice against gambling in itself. Every undertaking in life is a venture more or less doubtful. All these merchants here are liable to fail. Every profession, marriage itself, is a lottery, in which the future happiness of a life depends on an experiment that cannot be undone.
" This Californian expedition of mine is nothing less. Perhaps the necessity of labor and judgment are redeeming points in all but mere chance speculations. Probably the real evil of gambling consists in its
