"There are, however, people who unreasonably suppose that abuse and use cannot be separated, and who, forming to themselves I know not what mystical notions of virtue and piety, would persuade us that every kind of diversion is unworthy of a reasonable being,--'a low amusement,' 'a deceitful pleasure,' 'a consequence of man's fallen nature.' Such persons may be allowed to aspire to a state of perfection which perhaps may be beyond the reach of human nature, and which is certainly unattainable by the great mass of mankind; they ought, however, to allow those who are doubtful of their own powers of arriving at such perfection, to humbly follow the path which Nature and Providence have pointed out, and to possess their souls in peace, and their conscience without scruple. * * * * * "We maintain, then, as an irrefragable principle, that, for the sake of relaxation, we may indulge in such amusements as are in themselves free from vice. This being admitted, if a person finds pleasure in playing at Billiards, at Tennis, at Chess, at Cards, at Backgammon, and even at Dice, why may he not amuse himself with them, as well as in Promenading, with Music, in the Chase, in Fishing, in Drawing, and in a thousand other things of a similar kind? The question then is, whether the game be for nothing or for a stake of some value. In the first case, it is a mere recreation, and bears not the slightest semblance of criminality; and with regard to the second, I do not see why there should be any evil in it, looking at the matter simply, without regard to circumstances. "For if I am at liberty to promise and give my property, absolutely and unconditionally, to whomever I please, why may I not promise and give a certain sum, in the event of a person proving more fortunate, or more skillful than I with respect to the result of certain movements and combinations, upon which we had previously agreed? And why may not this person fairly avail himself of the result either of his skill or of a favorable concurrence of fortuitous circumstances, on the issue of which I had voluntarily contracted an obligation? Even though but one of the parties obtains an advantage, yet there would be nothing contrary to equity in the transaction, providing that the terms had been previously agreed on by both. Every person is at liberty to determine the conditions on which he will cede a right to another, and may even make it dependent on the most fortuitous circumstances. _A fortiori_, a person may fairly avail himself of his winning, when he has risked on the event as much as he was likely to gain. In fact, play [le jeu] is a kind of contract; and in every contract the mutual consent of the parties is the supreme law: this is an incontestable maxim of natural equity.[321]