Mr. Green, it will be seen by the following letter, has consented to meet his challenger in debate on the subject of gambling.  We are glad of this, inasmuch as Mr. Freeman is said to be quite an intelligent gentleman, and stands at the head of his profession.  The discussion, if conducted in a proper spirit, will be attended by good results.—­ED.

    For the Daily Sun.

Philadelphia, April 29, 1847.

Messrs. Barrett & Jones:—­In the “Sun” of the 28th and 29th inst. are two communications, over the signature of J.G.  Freeman, proposing to controvert my positions relative to the gamblers, and challenging me to a public discussion.

This individual called upon me after the publication of his first letter, and seemed to be honest in his intentions to defend his system of untold enormities.  If the public, therefore, can be benefited, and my reformatory purpose in this particular promoted, as I suspect it will, I would rather court than avoid such an interview.

I have long wished for, but certainly never expected such a discussion.

I see the shoe begins to pinch.  I am glad to perceive that those for whom it was made are beginning to feel and cry aloud.  Just as I anticipated, the law seems to be the part which binds most.  Men who are most without conscience are generally most restive in view of a threatening penitentiary.

I will accept the challenge to meet him on the several points proposed in his communications.  Indeed I am happy that he has chosen his own grounds; for the best which such opposition could select is likely in all conscience to be bad enough.

Suffer me therefore to say to your correspondent that I intend lecturing on the evenings of the 10th, 13th, and 15th of the coming month, (May,) at the Lecture-room of the Chinese Museum, on George street; at which times I will be very happy if he will attend and defend such positions as are assumed in the two communications alluded to.

I shall require, however, that a committee of gentlemen be chosen to control the discussion.

    J. H. GREEN.

The Lecture-room of the Museum will, we think, be found much too small to accommodate the audience, who desire to be present on these interesting occasions.  Would it not be better to take the upper part of the Museum building?  It would certainly be filled.—­ED.

Messrs. Editors:—­There is a feature in Mr. Green’s acceptance to my challenge to meet him in debate upon the subject of gambling, with which I frankly confess I am not at all pleased.  Upon looking over it, you will discover that he uses the following language:  “Suffer me, therefore, to say to your correspondent, that I intend lecturing on the evenings of the 10th, 13th, and 15th of the coming month, (May,) at the lecture-room of the Chinese Museum, on George street; at which time I will be very happy if he will attend and defend such positions as are assumed in the two communications alluded to.”  Now, I should like to know Mr. Green’s motive for calling a debate a lecture?  Why not call things by their right names?