{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_20447/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_20447","id":"gutenberg_20447","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20447","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Free thought"],"text":"Produced by An Anonymous volunteer\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\n Footnotes that describe the subject or circumstances of the interview\n are placed immediately after its title, or where they occur in the\n narrative. Other footnotes are at the end of the interview.\n\n The digraph \"ae\" has been spelled out for clarity. \"Employe\", used\n throughout with no accent, has been replaced by \"employee\".\n \"Buechner\" appeared with the umlaut in the original.\n\n Typographical and grammatical errors and misspellings have been\n corrected, but 19th-century variants have been retained. Question\n marks have been added where required.\n\n LoC call number: BL2720.A2\n\n\n[Frontispiece: v8.jpg]\n \"_With daughters' babes upon his knees,\n the white hair mingling with the gold_.\"\n EVA INGERSOLL-BROWN ROBERT G. INGERSOLL BROWN.\n\n\nDresden Edition\n\nTHE WORKS\nOF\n_Robert G. Ingersoll_\n\n\"HAPPINESS IS THE ONLY GOOD, REASON THE ONLY\nTORCH, JUSTICE THE ONLY WORSHIP, HUMANITY THE\nONLY RELIGION, AND LOVE THE ONLY PRIEST.\"\n\nIN TWELVE VOLUMES\nVOLUME VIII.\n\nINTERVIEWS\n\nNEW YORK\nTHE DRESDEN PUBLISHING CO.,\nC. P. FARRELL\nMCMXV\n\n\nCOPYRIGHT, 1900\nBY\nC. P. FARRELL\n\nCOPYRIGHT, 1901\nBY\nTHE DRESDEN PUBLISHING CO.\n\n\nCONTENTS OF VOLUME VIII.\nINTERVIEWS.\n\nTHE BIBLE AND A FUTURE LIFE, Washington Post\n\nMRS. VAN COTT, THE REVIVALIST, Buffalo Express\n\nEUROPEAN TRIP AND GREENBACK QUESTION, Washington Post\n\nTHE PRE-MILLENNIAL CONFERENCE, Buffalo Express\n\nTHE SOLID SOUTH AND RESUMPTION, Cincinnati Commercial\n\nSUNDAY LAWS OF PITTSBURG, Pittsburg Leader\n\nPOLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS, Chicago Times\n\nPOLITICS AND GEN. GRANT, Indianapolis Journal\n\nPOLITICS, RELIGION AND THOMAS PAINE, Chicago Times\n\nREPLY TO CHICAGO CRITICS, Chicago Tribune\n\nTHE REPUBLICAN VICTORY, New York Herald\n\nINGERSOLL AND BEECHER, New York Herald\n\nPOLITICAL, Washington Post\n\nRELIGION IN POLITICS, New York Evening Express\n\nMIRACLES AND IMMORTALITY, Pittsburg Dispatch\n\nTHE POLITICAL OUTLOOK, Cincinnati Commercial\n\nMR. BEECHER, MOSES AND THE NEGRO, Brooklyn Eagle\n\nHADES, DELAWARE AND FREETHOUGHT, Brooklyn Eagle\n\nA REPLY TO THE REV. MR. LANSING, New Haven Sunday Union\n\nBEACONSFIELD, LENT AND REVIVALS, Brooklyn Eagle\n\nANSWERING THE NEW YORK MINISTERS, Chicago Times\n\nGUITEAU AND HIS CRIME, Washington Sunday Gazette\n\nDISTRICT SUFFRAGE, Washington Capital\n\nFUNERAL OF JOHN G. MILLS AND IMMORTALITY, Washington Post\n\nSTAR ROUTE AND POLITICS, New York Herald\n\nTHE INTERVIEWER, New York Morning Journal\n\nPOLITICS AND PROHIBITION, Chicago Times\n\nTHE REPUBLICAN DEFEAT IN OHIO, Dayton Democrat\n\nTHE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL, Washington National Republican\n\nJUSTICE HARLAN AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL, Chicago Inter-Ocean\n\nPOLITICS AND THEOLOGY, Denver Tribune\n\nMORALITY AND IMMORTALITY, Detroit News\n\nPOLITICS, MORMONISM AND MR. BEECHER, Denver News\n\nFREE TRADE AND CHRISTIANITY, Denver Republican\n\nTHE OATH QUESTION, London Secular Review\n\nWENDELL PHILLIPS, FITZ JOHN PORTER AND BISMARCK, Chicago Times\n\nGENERAL SUBJECTS, Kansas City Times\n\nREPLY TO KANSAS CITY CLERGY, Kansas City Journal\n\nSWEARING AND AFFIRMING, Buffalo Courier\n\nREPLY TO A BUFFALO CRITIC, Buffalo Times\n\nBLASPHEMY, Philadelphia Press\n\nPOLITICS AND BRITISH COLUMBIA, San Francisco Evening Post\n\nINGERSOLL CATECHISED, San Francisco San Franciscan\n\nBLAINE'S DEFEAT, Topeka Commonwealth\n\nBLAINE'S DEFEAT, Louisville Commercial\n\nPLAGIARISM AND POLITICS, Cleveland Plain Dealer\n\nRELIGIOUS PREJUDICE, New York Mail and Express\n\nCLEVELAND AND HIS CABINET, New York Mail and Express\n\nRELIGION, PROHIBITION AND GEN. GRANT, Iowa State Register\n\nHELL OR SHEOL AND OTHER SUBJECTS, Boston Evening Record\n\nINTERVIEWING, POLITICS AND SPIRITUALISM, Cleveland Plain Dealer\n\nMY BELIEF, Philadelphia Times\n\nSOME LIVE TOPICS, New York Truth Seeker\n\nTHE PRESIDENT AND THE SENATE, Chicago Inter-Ocean\n\nATHEISM AND CITIZENSHIP, New York Herald\n\nTHE LABOR QUESTION, Cincinnati Enquirer\n\nRAILROADS AND POLITICS, Cincinnati Times Star\n\nPROHIBITION, Boston Evening Traveler\n\nHENRY GEORGE AND LABOR, New York Herald\n\nLABOR QUESTION AND SOCIALISM, New York World\n\nHENRY GEORGE AND SOCIALISM, Chicago Times\n\nREPLY TO THE REV. B. F. MORSE, New York Herald\n\nINGERSOLL ON McGLYNN, Brooklyn Citizen\n\nTRIAL OF THE CHICAGO ANARCHISTS, New York Mail and Express\n\nTHE STAGE AND THE PULPIT, New York Truth Seeker\n\nROSCOE CONKLING, New York Herald\n\nTHE CHURCH AND THE STATE, New York Dramatic Mirror\n\nPROTECTION--FREE TRADE, New York Press\n\nLABOR AND TARIFF REFORM, New York Press\n\nCLEVELAND AND THURMAN, New York Press\n\nTHE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM OF 1888, New York Press\n\nJAMES G. BLAINE AND POLITICS, New York Press\n\nTHE MILLS BILL, New York Press\n\nSOCIETY AND ITS CRIMINALS, New York World\n\nWOMAN'S RIGHT TO DIVORCE, New York World\n\nSECULARISM, Toronto Secular Thought\n\nSUMMER RECREATION--MR. GLADSTONE, Unpublished\n\nPROHIBITION, New York World\n\nROBERT ELSMERE, New York World\n\nWORKING GIRLS, New York World\n\nPROTECTION FOR AMERICAN ACTORS, New York Star\n\nLIBERALS AND LIBERALISM, Toronto Secular Thought\n\nPOPE LEO XIII., New York Herald\n\nTHE SACREDNESS OF THE SABBATH, New York Journal\n\nTHE WEST AND SOUTH, Indianapolis Journal\n\nTHE WESTMINSTER CREED AND OTHER SUBJECTS, Rochester Post-Express\n\nSHAKESPEARE AND BACON, Minneapolis Tribune\n\nGROWING OLD GRACEFULLY, AND PRESBYTERIANISM, Toledo Blade\n\nCREEDS, New York Morning Advertiser\n\nTHE TENDENCY OF MODERN THOUGHT, Chicago Tribune\n\nWOMAN SUFFRAGE, HORSE RACING, AND MONEY, Chicago Inter-Ocean\n\nMISSIONARIES, Cleveland Press\n\nMY BELIEF AND UNBELIEF, Toledo Blade\n\nMUST RELIGION GO? New York Evening Advertiser\n\nWORD PAINTING AND COLLEGE EDUCATION, Indianapolis News\n\nPERSONAL MAGNETISM AND THE SUNDAY QUESTION, Cincinnati Commercial\n Gazette\n\nAUTHORS, Kansas City Star\n\nINEBRIETY, Unpublished\n\nMIRACLES, THEOSOPHY AND SPIRITUALISM, Unpublished\n\nTOLSTOY AND LITERATURE, Buffalo Evening Express\n\nWOMAN IN POLITICS, New York Advertiser\n\nSPIRITUALISM, St. Louis Globe-Democrat\n\nPLAYS AND PLAYERS, New York Dramatic Mirror\n\nWOMAN, A Fragment\n\nSTRIKES, EXPANSION AND OTHER SUBJECTS, New York, May 5, 1893\n\nSUNDAY A DAY OF PLEASURE, New York Times\n\nTHE PARLIAMENT OF RELIGIONS, New York Herald\n\nCLEVELAND'S HAWAIIAN POLICY, Chicago Inter-Ocean\n\nORATORS AND ORATORY, London Sketch\n\nCATHOLICISM AND PROTESTANTISM.--THE POPE.--THE A. P. A., AGNOSTICISM\n AND THE CHURCH, New York Herald\n\nWOMAN AND HER DOMAIN, Grand Rapids Democrat\n\nPROFESSOR SWING, Chicago Inter-Ocean\n\nSENATOR SHERMAN AND HIS BOOK, St. Louis Globe-Democrat\n\nREPLY TO THE CHRISTIAN ENDEAVORERS, New York Journal\n\nSPIRITUALISM, New York Journal\n\nA LITTLE OF EVERYTHING, Rochester Herald\n\nIS LIFE WORTH LIVING?--CHRISTIAN SCIENCE AND POLITICS, Chicago\n Inter-Ocean\n\nVIVISECTION, New York Evening Telegram\n\nDIVORCE, New York Herald\n\nMUSIC, NEWSPAPERS, LYNCHING AND ARBITRATION, Chicago Inter-Ocean\n\nA VISIT TO SHAW'S GARDEN, St. Louis Republic\n\nTHE VENEZUELA BOUNDARY DISCUSSION AND THE WHIPPING POST, New York\n Journal\n\nCOLONEL SHEPARD'S STAGE HORSES, New York Morning Advertiser\n\nA REPLY TO THE REV. L. A. BANKS, Cleveland Plain Dealer\n\nCUBA--ZOLA AND THEOSOPHY, Louisville Courier-Journal\n\nHOW TO BECOME AN ORATOR, New York Sun\n\nJOHN RUSSELL YOUNG AND EXPANSION, Philadelphia Press\n\nPSYCHICAL RESEARCH AND THE BIBLE, New York Mind\n\nTHIS CENTURY'S GLORIES, New York Sun\n\nCAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND THE WHIPPING POST, Chicago Tribune\n\nEXPANSION AND TRUSTS, Philadelphia North American\n\n\nINTERVIEWS\n\n\nTHE BIBLE AND A FUTURE LIFE\n\n_Question_. Colonel, are your views of religion based upon the\nBible?\n\n_Answer_. I regard the Bible, especially the Old Testament, the\nsame as I do most other ancient books, in which there is some truth,\na great deal of error, considerable barbarism and a most plentiful\nlack of good sense.\n\n_Question_. Have you found any other work, sacred or profane,\nwhich you regard as more reliable?\n\n_Answer_. I know of no book less so, in my judgment.\n\n_Question_. You have studied the Bible attentively, have you not?\n\n_Answer_. I have read the Bible. I have heard it talked about a\ngood deal, and am sufficiently well acquainted with it to justify\nmy own mind in utterly rejecting all claims made for its divine\norigin.\n\n_Question_. What do you base your views upon?\n\n_Answer_. On reason, observation, experience, upon the discoveries\nin science, upon observed facts and the analogies properly growing\nout of such facts. I have no confidence in anything pretending to\nbe outside, or independent of, or in any manner above nature.\n\n_Question_. According to your views, what disposition is made of\nman after death?\n\n_Answer_. Upon that subject I know nothing. It is no more wonderful\nthat man should live again than he now lives; upon that question\nI know of no evidence. The doctrine of immortality rests upon\nhuman affection. We love, therefore we wish to live.\n\n_Question_. Then you would not undertake to say what becomes of\nman after death?\n\n_Answer_. If I told or pretended to know what becomes of man after\ndeath, I would be as dogmatic as are theologians upon this question.\nThe difference between them and me is, I am honest. I admit that\nI do not know.\n\n_Question_. Judging by your criticism of mankind, Colonel, in your\nrecent lecture, you have not found his condition very satisfactory?\n\n_Answer_. Nature, outside of man, so far as I know, is neither\ncruel nor merciful. I am not satisfied with the present condition\nof the human race, nor with the condition of man during any period\nof which we have any knowledge. I believe, however, the condition\nof man is improved, and this improvement is due to his own exertions.\nI do not make nature a being. I do not ascribe to nature\nintentions.\n\n_Question_. Is your theory, Colonel, the result of investigation\nof the subject?\n\n_Answer_. No one can control his own opinion or his own belief.\nMy belief was forced upon me by my surroundings. I am the product\nof all circumstances that have in any way touched me. I believe\nin this world. I have no confidence in any religion promising joys\nin another world at the expense of liberty and happiness in this.\nAt the same time, I wish to give others all the rights I claim for\nmyself.\n\n_Question_. If I asked for proofs for your theory, what would you\nfurnish?\n\n_Answer_. The experience of every man who is honest with himself,\nevery fact that has been discovered in nature. In addition to\nthese, the utter and total failure of all religionists in all\ncountries to produce one particle of evidence showing the existence\nof any supernatural power whatever, and the further fact that the\npeople are not satisfied with their religion. They are continually\nasking for evidence. They are asking it in every imaginable way.\nThe sects are continually dividing. There is no real religious\nserenity in the world. All religions are opponents of intellectual\nliberty. I believe in absolute mental freedom. Real religion with\nme is a thing not of the head, but of the heart; not a theory, not\na creed, but a life.\n\n_Question_. What punishment, then, is inflicted upon man for his\ncrimes and wrongs committed in this life?\n\n_Answer_. There is no such thing as intellectual crime. No man\ncan commit a mental crime. To become a crime it must go beyond\nthought.\n\n_Question_. What punishment is there for physical crime?\n\n_Answer_. Such punishment as is necessary to protect society and\nfor the reformation of the criminal.\n\n_Question_. If there is only punishment in this world, will not\nsome escape punishment?\n\n_Answer_. I admit that all do not seem to be punished as they\ndeserve. I also admit that all do not seem to be rewarded as they\ndeserve; and there is in this world, apparently, as great failures\nin matter of reward as in matter of punishment. If there is another\nlife, a man will be happier there for acting according to his\nhighest ideal in this. But I do not discern in nature any effort\nto do justice.\n\n--_The Post_, Washington, D. C., 1878.\n\n\nMRS. VAN COTT, THE REVIVALIST\n\n_Question_. I see, Colonel, that in an interview published this\nmorning, Mrs. Van Cott (the revivalist), calls you \"a poor barking\ndog.\" Do you know her personally?\n\n_Answer_. I have never met or seen her.\n\n_Question_. Do you know the reason she applied the epithet?\n\n_Answer_. I suppose it to be the natural result of what is called\nvital piety; that is to say, universal love breeds individual\nhatred.\n\n_Question_. Do you intend making any reply to what she says?\n\n_Answer_. I have written her a note of which this is a copy:\n\n _Buffalo, Feb. 24th, 1878._\nMRS. VAN COTT;\n\nMy dear Madam:--Were you constrained by the love of Christ to call\na man who has never injured you \"a poor barking dog?\" Did you make\nthis remark as a Christian, or as a lady? Did you say these words\nto illustrate in some faint degree the refining influence upon\nwomen of the religion you preach?\n\nWhat would you think of me if I should retort, using your language,\nchanging only the sex of the last word?\n\nI have the honor to remain,\n\nYours truly,\n\nR. G. INGERSOLL\n\n_Question_. Well, what do you think of the religious revival system\ngenerally?\n\n_Answer_. The fire that has to be blown all the time is a poor\nthing to get warm by. I regard these revivals as essentially\nbarbaric. I think they do no good, but much harm, they make innocent\npeople think they are guilty, and very mean people think they are\ngood.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion concerning women as conductors\nof these revivals?\n\n_Answer_. I suppose those engaged in them think they are doing\ngood. They are probably honest. I think, however, that neither\nmen nor women should be engaged in frightening people into heaven.\nThat is all I wish to say on the subject, as I do not think it\nworth talking about.\n\n--_The Express_, Buffalo, New York, Feb., 1878.\n\n\nEUROPEAN TRIP AND GREENBACK QUESTION\n\n_Question_. What did you do on your European trip, Colonel?\n\n_Answer_. I went with my family from New York to Southampton,\nEngland, thence to London, and from London to Edinburgh. In Scotland\nI visited every place where Burns had lived, from the cottage where\nhe was born to the room where he died. I followed him from the\ncradle to the coffin. I went to Stratford-upon-Avon for the purpose\nof seeing all that I could in any way connected with Shakespeare;\nnext to London, where we visited again all the places of interest,\nand thence to Paris, where we spent a couple of weeks in the\nExposition.\n\n_Question_. And what did you think of it?\n\n_Answer_. So far as machinery--so far as the practical is concerned,\nit is not equal to ours in Philadelphia; in art it is incomparably\nbeyond it. I was very much gratified to find so much evidence in\nfavor of my theory that the golden age in art is in front of us;\nthat mankind has been advancing, that we did not come from a perfect\npair and immediately commence to degenerate. The modern painters\nand sculptors are far better and grander than the ancient. I think\nwe excel in fine arts as much as we do in agricultural implements.\nNothing pleased me more than the painting from Holland, because\nthey idealized and rendered holy the ordinary avocations of life.\nThey paint cottages with sweet mothers and children; they paint\nhomes. They are not much on Ariadnes and Venuses, but they paint\ngood women.\n\n_Question_. What did you think of the American display?\n\n_Answer_. Our part of the Exposition is good, but nothing to what\nis should and might have been, but we bring home nearly as many\nmedals as we took things. We lead the world in machinery and in\ningenious inventions, and some of our paintings were excellent.\n\n_Question_. Colonel, crossing the Atlantic back to America, what\ndo you think of the Greenback movement?\n\n_Answer_. In regard to the Greenback party, in the first place,\nI am not a believer in miracles. I do not believe that something\ncan be made out of nothing. The Government, in my judgment, cannot\ncreate money; the Government can give its note, like an individual,\nand the prospect of its being paid determines its value. We have\nalready substantially resumed. Every piece of property that has\nbeen shrinking has simply been resuming. We expended during the\nwar--not for the useful, but for the useless, not to build up, but\nto destroy--at least one thousand million dollars. The Government\nwas an enormous purchaser; when the war ceased the industries of\nthe country lost their greatest customer. As a consequence there\nwas a surplus of production, and consequently a surplus of labor.\nAt last we have gotten back, and the country since the war has\nproduced over and above the cost of production, something near the\namount that was lost during the war. Our exports are about two\nhundred million dollars more than our imports, and this is a healthy\nsign. There are, however, five or six hundred thousand men,\nprobably, out of employment; as prosperity increases this number\nwill decrease. I am in favor of the Government doing something to\nameliorate the condition of these men. I would like to see\nconstructed the Northern and Southern Pacific railroads; this would\ngive employment at once to many thousands, and homes after awhile\nto millions. All the signs of the times to me are good. The\nwretched bankrupt law, at last, is wiped from the statute books,\nand honest people in a short time can get plenty of credit. This\nlaw should have been repealed years before it was. It would have\nbeen far better to have had all who have gone into bankruptcy during\nthese frightful years to have done so at once.\n\n_Question_. What will be the political effect of the Greenback\nmovement?\n\n_Answer_. The effect in Maine has been to defeat the Republican\nparty. I do not believe any party can permanently succeed in the\nUnited States that does not believe in and advocate actual money.\nI want to see the greenback equal with gold the world round. A\nmoney below par keeps the people below par. No man can possibly\nbe proud of a country that is not willing to pay its debts. Several\nof the States this fall may be carried by the Greenback party, but\nif I have a correct understanding of their views, that party cannot\nhold any State for any great length of time. But all the men of\nwealth should remember that everybody in the community has got, in\nsome way, to be supported. I want to see them so that they can\nsupport themselves by their own labor. In my judgment real prosperity\nwill begin with actual resumption, because confidence will then\nreturn. If the workingmen of the United States cannot make their\nliving, cannot have the opportunity to labor, they have got to be\nsupported in some way, and in any event, I want to see a liberal\npolicy inaugurated by the Government. I believe in improving rivers\nand harbors.\n\nI do not believe the trans-continental commerce of this country\nshould depend on one railroad. I want new territories opened. I\nwant to see American steamships running to all the great ports of\nthe world. I want to see our flag flying on all the seas and in\nall the harbors. We have the best country, and, in my judgment,\nthe best people in the world, and we ought to be the most prosperous\nnation on the earth.\n\n_Question_. Then you only consider the Greenback movement a\ntemporary thing?\n\n_Answer_. Yes; I do not believe that there is anything permanent\nin anything that is not sound, that has not a perfectly sound\nfoundation, and I mean sound, sound in every sense of that word.\nIt must be wise and honest. We have plenty of money; the trouble\nis to get it. If the Greenbackers will pass a law furnishing all\nof us with collaterals, there certainly would be no trouble about\ngetting the money. Nothing can demonstrate more fully the\nplentifulness of money than the fact that millions of four per\ncent. bonds have been taken in the United States. The trouble is,\nbusiness is scarce.\n\n_Question_. But do you not think the Greenback movement will help\nthe Democracy to success in 1880?\n\n_Answer_. I think the Greenback movement will injure the Republican\nparty much more than the Democratic party. Whether that injury\nwill reach as far as 1880 depends simply upon one thing. If\nresumption--in spite of all the resolutions to the contrary--\ninaugurates an era of prosperity, as I believe and hope it will,\nthen it seems to me that the Republican party will be as strong in\nthe North as in its palmiest days. Of course I regard most of the\nold issues as settled, and I make this statement simply because I\nregard the financial issue as the only living one.\n\nOf course, I have no idea who will be the Democratic candidate,\nbut I suppose the South will be solid for the Democratic nominee,\nunless the financial question divides that section of the country.\n\n_Question_. With a solid South do you not think the Democratic\nnominee will stand a good chance?\n\n_Answer_. Certainly, he will stand the best chance if the Democracy\nis right on the financial question; if it will cling to its old\nidea of hard money, he will. If the Democrats will recognize that\nthe issues of the war are settled, then I think that party has the\nbest chance.\n\n_Question_. But if it clings to soft money?\n\n_Answer_. Then I think it will be beaten, if by soft money it\nmeans the payment of one promise with another.\n\n_Question_. You consider Greenbackers inflationists, do you not?\n\n_Answer_. I suppose the Greenbackers to be the party of inflation.\nI am in favor of inflation produced by industry. I am in favor of\nthe country being inflated with corn, with wheat, good houses,\nbooks, pictures, and plenty of labor for everybody. I am in favor\nof being inflated with gold and silver, but I do not believe in\nthe inflation of promise, expectation and speculation. I sympathize\nwith every man who is willing to work and cannot get it, and I\nsympathize to that degree that I would like to see the fortunate\nand prosperous taxed to support his unfortunate brother until labor\ncould be found.\n\nThe Greenback party seems to think credit is just as good as gold.\nWhile the credit lasts this is so; but the trouble is, whenever it\nis ascertained that the gold is gone or cannot be produced the\ncredit takes wings. The bill of a perfectly solvent bank may\ncirculate for years. Now, because nobody demands the gold on that\nbill it doesn't follow that the bill would be just as good without\nany gold behind it. The idea that you can have the gold whenever\nyou present the bill gives it its value. To illustrate: A poor\nman buys soup tickets. He is not hungry at the time of purchase,\nand will not be for some hours. During those hours the Greenback\ngentlemen argue that there is no use of keeping any soup on hand\nwith which to redeem these tickets, and from this they further\nargue that if they can be good for a few hours without soup, why\nnot forever? And they would be, only the holder gets hungry.\nUntil he is hungry, of course, he does not care whether any soup\nis on hand or not, but when he presents his ticket he wants his\nsoup, and the idea that he can have the soup when he does present\nthe ticket gives it its value. And so I regard bank notes, without\ngold and silver, as of the same value as tickets without soup.\n\n--_The Post_, Washington, D. C., 1878.\n\n\nTHE PRE-MILLENNIAL CONFERENCE.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the Pre-Millennial Conference\nthat was held in New York City recently?\n\n_Answer_. Well, I think that all who attended it were believers\nin the Bible, and any one who believes in prophecies and looks to\ntheir fulfillment will go insane. A man that tries from Daniel's\nram with three horns and five tails and his deformed goats to\nascertain the date of the second immigration of Christ to this\nworld is already insane. It all shows that the moment we leave\nthe realm of fact and law we are adrift on the wide and shoreless\nsea of theological speculation.\n\n_Question_. Do you think there will be a second coming?\n\n_Answer_. No, not as long as the church is in power. Christ will\nnever again visit this earth until the Freethinkers have control.\nHe will certainly never allow another church to get hold of him.\nThe very persons who met in New York to fix the date of his coming\nwould despise him and the feeling would probably be mutual. In\nhis day Christ was an Infidel, and made himself unpopular by\ndenouncing the church as it then existed. He called them liars,\nhypocrites, thieves, vipers, whited sepulchres and fools. From\nthe description given of the church in that day, I am afraid that\nshould he come again, he would be provoked into using similar\nlanguage. Of course, I admit there are many good people in the\nchurch, just as there were some good Pharisees who were opposed to\nthe crucifixion.\n\n--_The Express_, Buffalo, New York, Nov. 4th, 1878.\n\n\nTHE SOLID SOUTH AND RESUMPTION.\n\n_Question_. Colonel, to start with, what do you think of the solid\nSouth?\n\n_Answer_. I think the South is naturally opposed to the Republican\nparty; more, I imagine, to the name, than to the personnel of the\norganization. But the South has just as good friends in the\nRepublican party as in the Democratic party. I do not think there\nare any Republicans who would not rejoice to see the South prosperous\nand happy. I know of none, at least. They will have to get over\nthe prejudices born of isolation. We lack direct and constant\ncommunication. I do not recollect having seen a newspaper from\nthe Gulf States for a long time. They, down there, may imagine\nthat the feeling in the North is the same as during the war. But\nit certainly is not. The Northern people are anxious to be friendly;\nand if they can be, without a violation of their principles, they\nwill be. Whether it be true or not, however, most of the Republicans\nof the North believe that no Republican in the South is heartily\nwelcome in that section, whether he goes there from the North, or\nis a Southern man. Personally, I do not care anything about partisan\npolitics. I want to see every man in the United States guaranteed\nthe right to express his choice at the ballot-box, and I do not\nwant social ostracism to follow a man, no matter how he may vote.\nA solid South means a solid North. A hundred thousand Democratic\nmajority in South Carolina means fifty thousand Republican majority\nin New York in 1880. I hope the sections will never divide, simply\nas sections. But if the Republican party is not allowed to live\nin the South, the Democratic party certainly will not be allowed\nto succeed in the North. I want to treat the people of the South\nprecisely as though the Rebellion had never occurred. I want all\nthat wiped from the slate of memory, and all I ask of the Southern\npeople is to give the same rights to the Republicans that we are\nwilling to give to them and have given to them.\n\n_Question_. How do you account for the results of the recent\nelections?\n\n_Answer_. The Republican party won the recent election simply\nbecause it was for honest money, and it was in favor of resumption.\nAnd if on the first of January next, we resume all right, and\nmaintain resumption, I see no reason why the Republican party should\nnot succeed in 1880. The Republican party came into power at the\ncommencement of the Rebellion, and necessarily retained power until\nits close; and in my judgment, it will retain power so long as in\nthe horizon of credit there is a cloud of repudiation as large as\na man's hand.\n\n_Question_. Do you think resumption will work out all right?\n\n_Answer_. I do. I think that on the first of January the greenback\nwill shake hands with gold on an equality, and in a few days\nthereafter will be worth just a little bit more. Everything has\nresumed, except the Government. All the property has resumed, all\nthe lands, bonds and mortgages and stocks. All these things resumed\nlong ago--that is to say, they have touched the bottom. Now, there\nis no doubt that the party that insists on the Government paying\nall its debts will hold control, and no one will get his hand on\nthe wheel who advocates repudiation in any form. There is one\nthing we must do, though. We have got to put more silver in our\ndollars. I do not think you can blame the New York banks--any bank\n--for refusing to take eighty-eight cents for a dollar. Neither\ncan you blame any depositor who puts gold in the bank for demanding\ngold in return. Yes, we must have in the silver dollar a dollar's\nworth of silver.\n\n--_The Commercial_, Cincinnati, Ohio, November, 1878.\n\n\nTHE SUNDAY LAWS OF PITTSBURG.*\n\n_Question_. Colonel, what do you think of the course the Mayor\nhas pursued toward you in attempting to stop your lecture?\n\n_Answer_. I know very little except what I have seen in the morning\npaper. As a general rule, laws should be enforced or repealed;\nand so far as I am personally concerned, I shall not so much complain\nof the enforcing of the law against Sabbath breaking as of the fact\nthat such a law exists. We have fallen heir to these laws. They\nwere passed by superstition, and the enlightened people of to-day\nshould repeal them. Ministers should not expect to fill their\nchurches by shutting up other places. They can only increase their\ncongregations by improving their sermons. They will have more\nhearers when they say more worth hearing. I have no idea that the\nMayor has any prejudice against me personally and if he only enforces\nthe law, I shall have none against him. If my lectures were free\nthe ministers might have the right to object, but as I charge one\ndollar admission and they nothing, they ought certainly be able to\ncompete with me.\n\n_Question_. Don't you think it is the duty of the Mayor, as chief\nexecutive of the city laws, to enforce the ordinances and pay no\nattention to what the statutes say?\n\n_Answer_. I suppose it to be the duty of the Mayor to enforce the\nordinance of the city and if the ordinance of the city covers the\nsame ground as the law of the State, a conviction under the ordinance\nwould be a bar to prosecution under the State law.\n\n_Question_. If the ordinance exempts scientific, literary and\nhistorical lectures, as it is said it does, will not that exempt\nyou?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, all my lectures are historical; that is, I speak\nof many things that have happened. They are scientific because\nthey are filled with facts, and they are literary of course. I\ncan conceive of no address that is neither historical nor scientific,\nexcept sermons. They fail to be historical because they treat of\nthings that never happened and they are certainly not scientific,\nas they contain no facts.\n\n_Question_. Suppose they arrest you what will you do?\n\n_Answer_. I will examine the law and if convicted will pay the\nfine, unless I think I can reverse the case by appeal. Of course\nI would like to see all these foolish laws wiped from the statute\nbooks. I want the law so that everybody can do just as he pleases\non Sunday, provided he does not interfere with the rights of others.\nI want the Christian, the Jew, the Deist and the Atheist to be\nexactly equal before the law. I would fight for the right of the\nChristian to worship God in his own way just as quick as I would\nfor the Atheist to enjoy music, flowers and fields. I hope to see\nthe time when even the poor people can hear the music of the finest\noperas on Sunday. One grand opera with all its thrilling tones,\nwill do more good in touching and elevating the world than ten\nthousand sermons on the agonies of hell.\n\n_Question_. Have you ever been interfered with before in delivering\nSunday lectures?\n\n_Answer_. No, I postponed a lecture in Baltimore at the request\nof the owners of a theatre because they were afraid some action\nmight be taken. That is the only case. I have delivered lectures\non Sunday in the principal cities of the United States, in New\nYork, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, San Francisco, Cincinnati and many\nother places. I lectured here last winter; it was on Sunday and\nI heard nothing of its being contrary to law. I always supposed\nmy lectures were good enough to be delivered on the most sacred\ndays.\n\n--_The Leader_, Pittsburg, Pa., October 27, 1879.\n\n[* The manager of the theatre, where Col. Ingersoll lectured, was fined\nfifty dollars which Col. Ingersoll paid.]\n\n\nPOLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.\n\n_Question_. What do you think about the recent election, and what\nwill be its effect upon political matters and the issues and\ncandidates of 1880?\n\n_Answer_. I think the Republicans have met with this almost\nuniversal success on account, first, of the position taken by the\nDemocracy on the currency question; that is to say, that party was\ndivided, and was willing to go in partnership with anybody, whatever\ntheir doctrines might be, for the sake of success in that particular\nlocality. The Republican party felt it of paramount importance\nnot only to pay the debt, but to pay it in that which the world\nregards as money. The next reason for the victory is the position\nassumed by the Democracy in Congress during the called session.\nThe threats they then made of what they would do in the event that\nthe executive did not comply with their demands, showed that the\nspirit of the party had not been chastened to any considerable\nextent by the late war. The people of this country will not, in\nmy judgment, allow the South to take charge of this country until\nthey show their ability to protect the rights of citizens in their\nrespective States.\n\n_Question_. Then, as you regard the victories, they are largely\ndue to a firm adherence to principle, and the failure of the\nDemocratic party is due to their abandonment of principle, and\ntheir desire to unite with anybody and everything, at the sacrifice\nof principle, to attain success?\n\n_Answer_. Yes. The Democratic party is a general desire for office\nwithout organization. Most people are Democrats because they hate\nsomething, most people are Republicans because they love something.\n\n_Question_. Do you think the election has brought about any\nparticular change in the issues that will be involved in the campaign\nof 1880?\n\n_Answer_. I think the only issue is who shall rule the country.\n\n_Question_. Do you think, then, the question of State Rights, hard\nor soft money and other questions that have been prominent in the\ncampaign are practically settled, and so regarded by the people?\n\n_Answer_. I think the money question is, absolutely. I think the\nquestion of State Rights is dead, except that it can still be used\nto defeat the Democracy. It is what might be called a convenient\npolitical corpse.\n\n_Question_. Now, to leave the political field and go to the\nreligious at one jump--since your last visit here much has been\nsaid and written and published to the effect that a great change,\nor a considerable change at least, had taken place in your religious,\nor irreligious views. I would like to know if that is so?\n\n_Answer_. The only change that has occurred in my religious views\nis the result of finding more and more arguments in favor of my\nposition, and, as a consequence, if there is any difference, I am\nstronger in my convictions than ever before.\n\n_Question_. I would like to know something of the history of your\nreligious views?\n\n_Answer_. I may say right here that the Christian idea that any\nGod can make me his friend by killing mine is about a great mistake\nas could be made. They seem to have the idea that just as soon as\nGod kills all the people that a person loves, he will then begin\nto love the Lord. What drew my attention first to these questions\nwas the doctrine of eternal punishment. This was so abhorrent to\nmy mind that I began to hate the book in which it was taught.\nThen, in reading law, going back to find the origin of laws, I\nfound one had to go but a little way before the legislator and\npriest united. This led me to a study of a good many of the\nreligions of the world. At first I was greatly astonished to find\nmost of them better than ours. I then studied our own system to\nthe best of my ability, and found that people were palming off upon\nchildren and upon one another as the inspired word of God a book\nthat upheld slavery, polygamy and almost every other crime. Whether\nI am right or wrong, I became convinced that the Bible is not an\ninspired book; and then the only question for me to settle was as\nto whether I should say what I believed or not. This really was\nnot the question in my mind, because, before even thinking of such\na question, I expressed my belief, and I simply claim that right\nand expect to exercise it as long as I live. I may be damned for\nit in the next world, but it is a great source of pleasure to me\nin this.\n\n_Question_. It is reported that you are the son of a Presbyterian\nminister?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, I am the son of a New School Presbyterian minister.\n\n_Question_. About what age were you when you began this investigation\nwhich led to your present convictions?\n\n_Answer_. I cannot remember when I believed the Bible doctrine of\neternal punishment. I have a dim recollection of hating Jehovah\nwhen I was exceedingly small.\n\n_Question_. Then your present convictions began to form themselves\nwhile you were listening to the teachings of religion as taught by\nyour father?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, they did.\n\n_Question_. Did you discuss the matter with him?\n\n_Answer_. I did for many years, and before he died he utterly gave\nup the idea that this life is a period of probation. He utterly\ngave up the idea of eternal punishment, and before he died he had\nthe happiness of believing that God was almost as good and generous\nas he was himself.\n\n_Question_. I suppose this gossip about a change in your religious\nviews arose or was created by the expression used at your brother's\nfuneral, \"In the night of death hope sees a star and listening love\ncan hear the rustle of a wing\"?\n\n_Answer_. I never willingly will destroy a solitary human hope.\nI have always said that I did not know whether man was or was not\nimmortal, but years before my brother died, in a lecture entitled\n\"The Ghosts,\" which has since been published, I used the following\nwords: \"The idea of immortality, that like a sea has ebbed and\nflowed in the human heart, with its countless waves of hope and\nfear, beating against the shores and rocks of time and fate, was\nnot born of any book, nor of any creed, nor of any religion. It\nwas born of human affection, and it will continue to ebb and flow\nbeneath the mists and clouds of doubt and darkness as long as love\nkisses the lips of death. It is the rainbow--Hope, shining upon\nthe tears of grief.\"\n\n_Question_. The great objection to your teaching urged by your\nenemies is that you constantly tear down, and never build up?\n\n_Answer_. I have just published a little book entitled, \"Some\nMistakes of Moses,\" in which I have endeavored to give most of the\narguments I have urged against the Pentateuch in a lecture I\ndelivered under that title. The motto on the title page is, \"A\ndestroyer of weeds, thistles and thorns is a benefactor, whether\nhe soweth grain or not.\" I cannot for my life see why one should\nbe charged with tearing down and not rebuilding simply because he\nexposes a sham, or detects a lie. I do not feel under any obligation\nto build something in the place of a detected falsehood. All I\nthink I am under obligation to put in the place of a detected lie\nis the detection. Most religionists talk as if mistakes were\nvaluable things and they did not wish to part with them without a\nconsideration. Just how much they regard lies worth a dozen I do\nnot know. If the price is reasonable I am perfectly willing to\ngive it, rather than to see them live and give their lives to the\ndefence of delusions. I am firmly convinced that to be happy here\nwill not in the least detract from our happiness in another world\nshould we be so fortunate as to reach another world; and I cannot\nsee the value of any philosophy that reaches beyond the intelligent\nhappiness of the present. There may be a God who will make us\nhappy in another world. If he does, it will be more than he has\naccomplished in this. I suppose that he will never have more than\ninfinite power and never have less than infinite wisdom, and why\npeople should expect that he should do better in another world than\nhe has in this is something that I have never been able to explain.\nA being who has the power to prevent it and yet who allows thousands\nand millions of his children to starve; who devours them with\nearthquakes; who allows whole nations to be enslaved, cannot in my\njudgment be implicitly be depended upon to do justice in another\nworld.\n\n_Question_. How do the clergy generally treat you?\n\n_Answer_. Well, of course there are the same distinctions among\nclergymen as among other people. Some of them are quite respectable\ngentlemen, especially those with whom I am not acquainted. I think\nthat since the loss of my brother nothing could exceed the\nheartlessness of the remarks made by the average clergyman. There\nhave been some noble exceptions, to whom I feel not only thankful\nbut grateful; but a very large majority have taken this occasion\nto say most unfeeling and brutal things. I do not ask the clergy\nto forgive me, but I do request that they will so act that I will\nnot have to forgive them. I have always insisted that those who\nlove their enemies should at least tell the truth about their\nfriends, but I suppose, after all, that religion must be supported\nby the same means as those by which it was founded. Of course,\nthere are thousands of good ministers, men who are endeavoring to\nmake the world better, and whose failure is no particular fault of\ntheir own. I have always been in doubt as to whether the clergy\nwere a necessary or an unnecessary evil.\n\n_Question_. I would like to have a positive expression of your\nviews as to a future state?\n\n_Answer_. Somebody asked Confucius about another world, and his\nreply was: \"How should I know anything about another world when\nI know so little of this?\" For my part, I know nothing of any\nother state of existence, either before or after this, and I have\nnever become personally acquainted with anybody that did. There\nmay be another life, and if there is, the best way to prepare for\nit is by making somebody happy in this. God certainly cannot afford\nto put a man in hell who has made a little heaven in this world.\nI propose simply to take my chances with the rest of the folks,\nand prepare to go where the people I am best acquainted with will\nprobably settle. I cannot afford to leave the great ship and sneak\noff to shore in some orthodox canoe. I hope there is another life,\nfor I would like to see how things come out in the world when I am\ndead. There are some people I would like to see again, and hope\nthere are some who would not object to seeing me; but if there is\nno other life I shall never know it. I do not remember a time when\nI did not exist; and if, when I die, that is the end, I shall not\nknow it, because the last thing I shall know is that I am alive,\nand if nothing is left, nothing will be left to know that I am\ndead; so that so far as I am concerned I am immortal; that is to\nsay, I cannot recollect when I did not exist, and there never will\nbe a time when I shall remember that I do not exist. I would like\nto have several millions of dollars, and I may say that I have a\nlively hope that some day I may be rich, but to tell you the truth\nI have very little evidence of it. Our hope of immortality does\nnot come from any religion, but nearly all religions come from that\nhope. The Old Testament, instead of telling us that we are immortal,\ntells us how we lost immortality. You will recollect that if Adam\nand Eve could have gotten to the Tree of Life, they would have\neaten of its fruit and would have lived forever; but for the purpose\nof preventing immortality God turned them out of the Garden of\nEden, and put certain angels with swords or sabres at the gate to\nkeep them from getting back. The Old Testament proves, if it proves\nanything--which I do not think it does--that there is no life after\nthis; and the New Testament is not very specific on the subject.\nThere were a great many opportunities for the Saviour and his\napostles to tell us about another world, but they did not improve\nthem to any great extent; and the only evidence, so far as I know,\nabout another life is, first, that we have no evidence; and,\nsecondly, that we are rather sorry that we have not, and wish we\nhad. That is about my position.\n\n_Question_. According to your observation of men, and your reading\nin relation to the men and women of the world and of the church,\nif there is another world divided according to orthodox principles\nbetween the orthodox and heterodox, which of the two that are known\nas heaven and hell would contain, in your judgment, the most good\nsociety?\n\n_Answer_. Since hanging has got to be a means of grace, I would\nprefer hell. I had a thousand times rather associate with the\nPagan philosophers than with the inquisitors of the Middle Ages.\nI certainly should prefer the worst man in Greek or Roman history\nto John Calvin; and I can imagine no man in the world that I would\nnot rather sit on the same bench with than the Puritan fathers and\nthe founders of orthodox churches. I would trade off my harp any\nminute for a seat in the other country. All the poets will be in\nperdition, and the greatest thinkers, and, I should think, most of\nthe women whose society would tend to increase the happiness of\nman; nearly all the painters, nearly all the sculptors, nearly all\nthe writers of plays, nearly all the great actors, most of the best\nmusicians, and nearly all the good fellows--the persons who know\nstories, who can sing songs, or who will loan a friend a dollar.\nThey will mostly all be in that country, and if I did not live\nthere permanently, I certainly would want it so I could spend my\nwinter months there. But, after all, what I really want to do is\nto destroy the idea of eternal punishment. That doctrine subverts\nall ideas of justice. That doctrine fills hell with honest men,\nand heaven with intellectual and moral paupers. That doctrine\nallows people to sin on credit. That doctrine allows the basest\nto be eternally happy and the most honorable to suffer eternal\npain. I think of all doctrines it is the most infinitely infamous,\nand would disgrace the lowest savage; and any man who believes it,\nand has imagination enough to understand it, has the heart of a\nserpent and the conscience of a hyena.\n\n_Question_. Your objective point is to destroy the doctrine of\nhell, is it?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, because the destruction of that doctrine will do\naway with all cant and all pretence. It will do away with all\nreligious bigotry and persecution. It will allow every man to\nthink and to express his thought. It will do away with bigotry in\nall its slimy and offensive forms.\n\n--_Chicago Tribune_, November 14, 1879.\n\n\nPOLITICS AND GEN. GRANT\n\n_Question_. Some people have made comparisons between the late\nSenators O. P. Morton and Zach. Chandler. What did you think of\nthem, Colonel?\n\n_Answer_. I think Morton had the best intellectual grasp of a\nquestion of any man I ever saw. There was an infinite difference\nbetween the two men. Morton's strength lay in proving a thing;\nChandler's in asserting it. But Chandler was a strong man and no\nhypocrite.\n\n_Question_. Have you any objection to being interviewed as to your\nideas of Grant, and his position before the people?\n\n_Answer_. I have no reason for withholding my views on that or\nany other subject that is under public discussion. My idea is that\nGrant can afford to regard the presidency as a broken toy. It\nwould add nothing to his fame if he were again elected, and would\nadd nothing to the debt of gratitude which the people feel they\nowe him. I do not think he will be a candidate. I do not think\nhe wants it. There are men who are pushing him on their own account.\nGrant was a great soldier. He won the respect of the civilized\nworld. He commanded the largest army that ever fought for freedom,\nand to make him President would not add a solitary leaf to the\nwreath of fame already on his brow; and should he be elected, the\nonly thing he could do would be to keep the old wreath from fading.\n\nI do not think his reputation can ever be as great in any direction\nas in the direction of war. He has made his reputation and has\nlived his great life. I regard him, confessedly, as the best\nsoldier the Anglo-Saxon blood has produced. I do not know that it\nnecessarily follows because he is a great soldier he is great in\nother directions. Probably some of the greatest statesmen in the\nworld would have been the worst soldiers.\n\n_Question_. Do you regard him as more popular now than ever before?\n\n_Answer_. I think that his reputation is certainly greater and\nhigher than when he left the presidency, and mainly because he has\nrepresented this country with so much discretion and with such\nquiet, poised dignity all around the world. He has measured himself\nwith kings, and was able to look over the heads of every one of\nthem. They were not quite as tall as he was, even adding the crown\nto their original height. I think he represented us abroad with\nwonderful success. One thing that touched me very much was, that\nat a reception given him by the workingmen of Birmingham, after he\nhad been received by royalty, he had the courage to say that that\nreception gave him more pleasure than any other. He has been\nthroughout perfectly true to the genius of our institutions, and\nhas not upon any occasion exhibited the slightest toadyism. Grant\nis a man who is not greatly affected by either flattery or abuse.\n\n_Question_. What do you believe to be his position in regard to\nthe presidency?\n\n_Answer_. My own judgment is that he does not care. I do not\nthink he has any enemies to punish, and I think that while he was\nPresident he certainly rewarded most of his friends.\n\n_Question_. What are your views as to a third term?\n\n_Answer_. I have no objection to a third term on principle, but\nso many men want the presidency that it seems almost cruel to give\na third term to anyone.\n\n_Question_. Then, if there is no objection to a third term, what\nabout a fourth?\n\n_Answer_. I do not know that that could be objected to, either.\nWe have to admit, after all, that the American people, or at least\na majority of them, have a right to elect one man as often as they\nplease. Personally, I think it should not be done unless in the\ncase of a man who is prominent above the rest of his fellow-citizens,\nand whose election appears absolutely necessary. But I frankly\nconfess I cannot conceive of any political situation where one man\nis a necessity. I do not believe in the one-man-on-horseback idea,\nbecause I believe in all the people being on horseback.\n\n_Question_. What will be the effect of the enthusiastic receptions\nthat are being given to General Grant?\n\n_Answer_. I think these ovations show that the people are resolved\nnot to lose the results of the great victories of the war, and that\nthey make known this determination by their attention to General\nGrant. I think that if he goes through the principal cities of\nthis country the old spirit will be revived everywhere, and whether\nit makes him President or not the result will be to make the election\ngo Republican. The revival of the memories of the war will bring\nthe people of the North together as closely as at any time since\nthat great conflict closed, not in the spirit of hatred, or malice\nor envy, but in generous emulation to preserve that which was fairly\nwon. I do not think there is any hatred about it, but we are\nbeginning to see that we must save the South ourselves, and that\nthat is the only way we can save the nation.\n\n_Question_. But suppose they give the same receptions in the South?\n\n_Answer_. So much the better.\n\n_Question_. Is there any split in the solid South?\n\n_Answer_. Some of the very best people in the South are apparently\ndisgusted with following the Democracy any longer, and would hail\nwith delight any opportunity they could reasonably take advantage\nof to leave the organization, if they could do so without making\nit appear that they were going back on Southern interests, and this\nopportunity will come when the South becomes enlightened, and sees\nthat it has no interests except in common with the whole country.\nThat I think they are beginning to see.\n\n_Question_. How do you like the administration of President Hayes?\n\n_Answer_. I think its attitude has greatly improved of late.\nThere are certain games of cards--pedro, for instance, where you\ncan not only fail to make something, but be set back. I think that\nHayes's veto messages very nearly got him back to the commencement\nof the game--that he is now almost ready to commence counting, and\nmake some points. His position before the country has greatly\nimproved, but he will not develop into a dark horse. My preference\nis, of course, still for Blaine.\n\n_Question_. Where do you think it is necessary the Republican\ncandidate should come from to insure success?\n\n_Answer_. Somewhere out of Ohio. I think it will go to Maine,\nand for this reason: First of all, Blaine is certainly a competent\nman of affairs, a man who knows what to do at the time; and then\nhe has acted in such a chivalric way ever since the convention at\nCincinnati, that those who opposed him most bitterly, now have for\nhim nothing but admiration. I think John Sherman is a man of\ndecided ability, but I do not believe the American people would\nmake one brother President, while the other is General of the Army.\nIt would be giving too much power to one family.\n\n_Question_. What are your conclusions as to the future of the\nDemocratic party?\n\n_Answer_. I think the Democratic party ought to disband. I think\nthey would be a great deal stronger disbanded, because they would\nget rid of their reputation without decreasing.\n\n_Question_. But if they will not disband?\n\n_Answer_. Then the next campaign depends undoubtedly upon New York\nand Indiana. I do not see how they can very well help nominating\na man from Indiana, and by that I mean Hendricks. You see the\nSouth has one hundred and thirty-eight votes, all supposed to be\nDemocratic; with the thirty-five from New York and fifteen from\nIndiana they would have just three to spare. Now, I take it, that\nthe fifteen from Indiana are just about as essential as the thirty-\nfive from New York. To lack fifteen votes is nearly as bad as\nbeing thirty-five short, and so far as drawing salary is concerned\nit is quite as bad. Mr. Hendricks ought to know that he holds the\nkey to Indiana, and that there cannot be any possibility of carrying\nthis State for Democracy without him. He has tried running for\nthe vice-presidency, which is not much of a place anyhow--I would\nabout as soon be vice-mother-in-law--and my judgment is that he\nknows exactly the value of his geographical position. New York is\ndivided to that degree that it would be unsafe to take a candidate\nfrom that State; and besides, New York has become famous for\nfurnishing defeated candidates for the Democracy. I think the man\nmust come from Indiana.\n\n_Question_. Would the Democracy of New York unite on Seymour?\n\n_Answer_. You recollect what Lincoln said about the powder that\nhad been shot off once. I do not remember any man who has once\nmade a race for the presidency and been defeated ever being again\nnominated.\n\n_Question_. What about Bayard and Hancock as candidates?\n\n_Answer_. I do not see how Bayard could possibly carry Indiana,\nwhile his own State is too small and too solidly Democratic. My\nidea of Bayard is that he has not been good enough to be popular,\nand not bad enough to be famous. The American people will never\nelect a President from a State with a whipping-post. As to General\nHancock, you may set it down as certain that the South will never\nlend their aid to elect a man who helped to put down the Rebellion.\nIt would be just the same as the effort to elect Greeley. It cannot\nbe done. I see, by the way, that I am reported as having said that\nDavid Davis, as the Democratic candidate, could carry Illinois.\nI did say that in 1876, he could have carried it against Hayes;\nbut whether he could carry Illinois in 1880 would depend altogether\nupon who runs against him. The condition of things has changed\ngreatly in our favor since 1876.\n\n--_The Journal_, Indianapolis, Ind., November, 1879.\n\n\nPOLITICS, RELIGION AND THOMAS PAINE.\n\n_Question_. You have traveled about this State more or less,\nlately, and have, of course, observed political affairs here. Do\nyou think that Senator Logan will be able to deliver this State to\nthe Grant movement according to the understood plan?\n\n_Answer_. If the State is really for Grant, he will, and if it is\nnot, he will not. Illinois is as little \"owned\" as any State in\nthis Union. Illinois would naturally be for Grant, other things\nbeing equal, because he is regarded as a citizen of this State,\nand it is very hard for a State to give up the patronage naturally\ngrowing out of the fact that the President comes from that State.\n\n_Question_. Will the instructions given to delegates be final?\n\n_Answer_. I do not think they will be considered final at all;\nneither do I think they will be considered of any force. It was\ndecided at the last convention, in Cincinnati, that the delegates\nhad a right to vote as they pleased; that each delegate represented\nthe district of the State that sent him. The idea that a State\nconvention can instruct them as against the wishes of their\nconstituents smacks a little too much of State sovereignty. The\nPresident should be nominated by the districts of the whole country,\nand not by massing the votes by a little chicanery at a State\nconvention, and every delegate ought to vote what he really believes\nto be the sentiment of his constituents, irrespective of what the\nState convention may order him to do. He is not responsible to\nthe State convention, and it is none of the State convention's\nbusiness. This does not apply, it may be, to the delegates at\nlarge, but to all the others it certainly must apply. It was so\ndecided at the Cincinnati convention, and decided on a question\narising about this same Pennsylvania delegation.\n\n_Question_. Can you guess as to what the platform in going to\ncontain?\n\n_Answer_. I suppose it will be a substantial copy of the old one.\nI am satisfied with the old one with one addition. I want a plank\nto the effect that no man shall be deprived of any civil or political\nright on account of his religious or irreligious opinions. The\nRepublican party having been foremost in freeing the body ought to\ndo just a little something now for the mind. After having wasted\nrivers of blood and treasure uncounted, and almost uncountable, to\nfree the cage, I propose that something ought to be done for the\nbird. Every decent man in the United States would support that\nplank. People should have a right to testify in courts, whatever\ntheir opinions may be, on any subject. Justice should not shut\nany door leading to truth, and as long as just views neither affect\na man's eyesight or his memory, he should be allowed to tell his\nstory. And there are two sides to this question, too. The man is\nnot only deprived of his testimony, but the commonwealth is deprived\nof it. There should be no religious test in this country for\noffice; and if Jehovah cannot support his religion without going\ninto partnership with a State Legislature, I think he ought to give\nit up.\n\n_Question_. Is there anything new about religion since you were\nlast here?\n\n_Answer_. Since I was here I have spoken in a great many cities,\nand to-morrow I am going to do some missionary work at Milwaukee.\nMany who have come to scoff have remained to pray, and I think that\nmy labors are being greatly blessed, and all attacks on me so far\nhave been overruled for good. I happened to come in contact with\na revival of religion, and I believe what they call an \"outpouring\"\nat Detroit, under the leadership of a gentleman by the name of\nPentecost. He denounced me as God's greatest enemy. I had always\nsupposed that the Devil occupied that exalted position, but it\nseems that I have, in some way, fallen heir to his shoes. Mr.\nPentecost also denounced all business men who would allow any\nadvertisements or lithographs of mine to hang in their places of\nbusiness, and several of these gentlemen thus appealed to took the\nadvertisements away. The result of all this was that I had the\nlargest house that ever attended a lecture in Detroit. Feeling\nthat ingratitude is a crime, I publicly returned thanks to the\nclergy for the pains they had taken to give me an audience. And\nI may say, in this connection, that if the ministers do God as\nlittle good as they do me harm, they had better let both of us\nalone. I regard them as very good, but exceedingly mistaken men.\nThey do not come much in contact with the world, and get most of\ntheir views by talking with the women and children of their\ncongregations. They are not permitted to mingle freely with society.\nThey cannot attend plays nor hear operas. I believe some of them\nhave ventured to minstrel shows and menageries, where they confine\nthemselves strictly to the animal part of the entertainment. But,\nas a rule, they have very few opportunities of ascertaining what\nthe real public opinion is. They read religious papers, edited by\ngentlemen who know as little about the world as themselves, and\nthe result of all this is that they are rather behind the times.\nThey are good men, and would like to do right if they only knew\nit, but they are a little behind the times. There is an old story\ntold of a fellow who had a post-office in a small town in North\nCarolina, and he being the only man in the town who could read, a\nfew people used to gather in the post-office on Sunday, and he\nwould read to them a weekly paper that was published in Washington.\nHe commenced always at the top of the first column and read right\nstraight through, articles, advertisements, and all, and whenever\nthey got a little tired of reading he would make a mark of red\nochre and commence at that place the next Sunday. The result was\nthat the papers came a great deal faster than he read them, and it\nwas about 1817 when they struck the war of 1812. The moment they\ngot to that, every one of them jumped up and offered to volunteer.\nAll of which shows that they were patriotic people, but a little\nshow, and somewhat behind the times.\n\n_Question_. How were you pleased with the Paine meeting here, and\nits results?\n\n_Answer_. I was gratified to see so many people willing at last\nto do justice to a great and a maligned man. Of course I do not\nclaim that Paine was perfect. All I claim is that he was a patriot\nand a political philosopher; that he was a revolutionist and an\nagitator; that he was infinitely full of suggestive thought, and\nthat he did more than any man to convince the people of American\nnot only that they ought to separate from Great Britain, but that\nthey ought to found a representative government. He has been\ndespised simply because he did not believe the Bible. I wish to\ndo what I can to rescue his name from theological defamation. I\nthink the day has come when Thomas Paine will be remembered with\nWashington, Franklin and Jefferson, and that the American people\nwill wonder that their fathers could have been guilty of such base\ningratitude.\n\n--_Chicago Times_, February 8, 1880.\n\n\nREPLY TO CHICAGO CRITICS.\n\n_Question_. Have you read the replies of the clergy to your recent\nlecture in this city on \"What Must we do to be Saved?\" and if so\nwhat do you think of them?\n\n_Answer_. I think they dodge the point. The real point is this:\nIf salvation by faith is the real doctrine of Christianity, I asked\non Sunday before last, and I still ask, why didn't Matthew tell\nit? I still insist that Mark should have remembered it, and I\nshall always believe that Luke ought, at least, to have noticed\nit. I was endeavoring to show that modern Christianity has for\nits basis an interpolation. I think I showed it. The only gospel\non the orthodox side is that of John, and that was certainly not\nwritten, or did not appear in its present form, until long after\nthe others were written.\n\nI know very well that the Catholic Church claimed during the Dark\nAges, and still claims, that references had been made to the gospels\nby persons living in the first, second, and third centuries; but\nI believe such manuscripts were manufactured by the Catholic Church.\nFor many years in Europe there was not one person in twenty thousand\nwho could read and write. During that time the church had in its\nkeeping the literature of our world. They interpolated as they\npleased. They created. They destroyed. In other words, they did\nwhatever in their opinion was necessary to substantiate the faith.\n\nThe gentlemen who saw fit to reply did not answer the question,\nand I again call upon the clergy to explain to the people why, if\nsalvation depends upon belief on the Lord Jesus Christ, Matthew\ndidn't mention it. Some one has said that Christ didn't make known\nthis doctrine of salvation by belief or faith until after his\nresurrection. Certainly none of the gospels were written until\nafter his resurrection; and if he made that doctrine known after\nhis resurrection, and before his ascension, it should have been\nin Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as in John.\n\nThe replies of the clergy show that they have not investigated the\nsubject; that they are not well acquainted with the New Testament.\nIn other words, they have not read it except with the regulation\ntheological bias.\n\nThere is one thing I wish to correct here. In an editorial in the\n_Tribune_ it was stated that I had admitted that Christ was beyond\nand above Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucius, and others. I did not say\nso. Another point was made against me, and those who made it seemed\nto think it was a good one. In my lecture I asked why it was that\nthe disciples of Christ wrote in Greek, whereas, if fact, they\nunderstood only Hebrew. It is now claimed that Greek was the\nlanguage of Jerusalem at that time; that Hebrew had fallen into\ndisuse; that no one understood it except the literati and the highly\neducated. If I fell into an error upon this point it was because\nI relied upon the New Testament. I find in the twenty-first chapter\nof the Acts an account of Paul having been mobbed in the city of\nJerusalem; that he was protected by a chief captain and some\nsoldiers; that, while upon the stairs of the castle to which he\nwas being taken for protection, he obtained leave from the captain\nto speak unto the people. In the fortieth verse of that chapter\nI find the following:\n\n\"And when he had given him license, Paul stood on the stairs and\nbeckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made\na great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,\"\n\nAnd then follows the speech of Paul, wherein he gives an account of\nhis conversion. It seems a little curious to me that Paul, for\nthe purpose of quieting a mob, would speak to that mob in an unknown\nlanguage. If I were mobbed in the city of Chicago, and wished to\ndefend myself with an explanation, I certainly would not make that\nexplanation in Choctaw, even if I understood that tongue. My\npresent opinion is that I would speak in English; and the reason\nI would speak in English is because that language is generally\nunderstood in this city, and so I conclude from the account in the\ntwenty-first chapter of the Acts that Hebrew was the language of\nJerusalem at that time, or Paul would not have addressed the mob\nin that tongue.\n\n_Question_. Did you read Mr. Courtney's answer?\n\n_Answer_. I read what Mr. Courtney read from others, and think\nsome of his quotations very good; and have no doubt that the authors\nwill feel complimented by being quoted. There certainly is no need\nof my answering Dr. Courtney; sometime I may answer the French\ngentlemen from whom he quoted.\n\n_Question_. But what about there being \"belief\" in Matthew?\n\n_Answer_. Mr. Courtney says that certain people were cured of\ndiseases on account of faith. Admitting that mumps, measles, and\nwhooping-cough could be cured in that way, there is not even a\nsuggestion that salvation depended upon a like faith. I think he\ncan hardly afford to rely upon the miracles of the New Testament\nto prove his doctrine. There is one instance in which a miracle\nwas performed by Christ without his knowledge; and I hardly think\nthat even Mr. Courtney would insist that any faith could have been\ngreat enough for that. The fact is, I believe that all these\nmiracles were ascribed to Christ long after his death, and that\nChrist never, at any time or place, pretended to have any supernatural\npower whatever. Neither do I believe that he claimed any supernatural\norigin. He claimed simply to be a man; no less, no more. I do\nnot believe Mr. Courtney is satisfied with his own reply.\n\n_Question_. And now as to Prof. Swing?\n\n_Answer_. Mr. Swing has been out of the orthodox church so long\nthat he seems to have forgotten the reasons for which he left it.\nI do not believe there is an orthodox minister in the city of\nChicago who will agree with Mr. Swing that salvation by faith is\nno longer preached. Prof. Swing seems to think it of no importance\nwho wrote the gospel of Matthew. In this I agree with him. Judging\nfrom what he said there is hardly difference enough of opinion\nbetween us to justify a reply on his part. He, however, makes one\nmistake. I did not in the lecture say one word about tearing down\nchurches. I have no objection to people building all the churches\nthey wish. While I admit it is a pretty sight to see children on\na morning in June going through the fields to the country church,\nI still insist that the beauty of that sight does not answer the\nquestion how it is that Matthew forgot to say anything about\nsalvation through Christ. Prof. Swing is a man of poetic temperament,\nbut this is not a poetic question.\n\n_Question_. How did the card of Dr. Thomas strike you?\n\n_Answer_. I think the reply of Dr. Thomas is in the best possible\nspirit. I regard him to-day as the best intellect in the Methodist\ndenomination. He seems to have what is generally understood as a\nChristian spirit. He has always treated me with perfect fairness,\nand I should have said long ago many grateful things, had I not\nfeared I might hurt him with his own people. He seems to be by\nnature a perfectly fair man; and I know of no man in the United\nStates for whom I have a profounder respect. Of course, I don't\nagree with Dr. Thomas. I think in many things he is mistaken.\nBut I believe him to be perfectly sincere. There is one trouble\nabout him--he is growing; and this fact will no doubt give great\ntrouble to many of his brethren. Certain Methodist hazel-brush\nfeel a little uneasy in the shadow of this oak. To see the difference\nbetween him and some others, all that is necessary is to read his\nreply, and then read the remarks made at the Methodist ministers'\nmeeting on the Monday following. Compared with Dr. Thomas, they\nare as puddles by the sea. There is the same difference that there\nis between sewers and rivers, cesspools and springs.\n\n_Question_. What have you to say to the remarks of the Rev. Dr.\nJewett before the Methodist ministers' meeting?\n\n_Answer_. I think Dr. Jewett is extremely foolish. I did not say\nthat I would commence suit against a minister for libel. I can\nhardly conceive of a proceeding that would be less liable to produce\na dividend. The fact about it is, that the Rev. Mr. Jewett seems\nto think anything true that he hears against me. Mr. Jewett is\nprobably ashamed of what he said by this time. He must have known\nit to be entirely false. It seems to me by this time even the most\nbigoted should lose their confidence in falsehood. Of course there\nare times when a falsehood well told bridges over quite a difficulty,\nbut in the long run you had better tell the truth, even if you swim\nthe creek. I am astonished that these ministers were willing to\nexhibit their wounds to the world. I supposed of course I would\nhit some, but I had no idea of wounding so many.\n\n_Question_. Mr. Crafts stated that you were in the habit of swearing\nin company and before your family?\n\n_Answer_. I often swear. In other words, I take the name of God\nin vain; that is to say, I take it without any practical thing\nresulting from it, and in that sense I think most ministers are\nguilty of the same thing. I heard an old story of a clergyman who\nrebuked a neighbor for swearing, to whom the neighbor replied, \"You\npray and I swear, but as a matter of fact neither of us means\nanything by it.\" As to the charge that I am in the habit of using\nindecent language in my family, no reply is needed. I am willing\nto leave that question to the people who know us both. Mr. Crafts\nsays he was told this by a lady. This cannot by any possibility\nbe true, for no lady will tell a falsehood. Besides, if this woman\nof whom he speaks was a lady, how did she happen to stay where\nobscene language was being used? No lady ever told Mr. Crafts any\nsuch thing. It may be that a lady did tell him that I used profane\nlanguage. I admit that I have not always spoken of the Devil in\na respectful way; that I have sometimes referred to his residence\nwhen it was not a necessary part of the conversation, and that a\ndivers times I have used a good deal of the terminology of the\ntheologian when the exact words of the scientist might have done\nas well. But if by swearing is meant the use of God's name in\nvain, there are very few preachers who do not swear more than I\ndo, if by \"in vain\" is meant without any practical result. I leave\nMr. Crafts to cultivate the acquaintance of the unknown lady,\nknowing as I do, that after they have talked this matter over again\nthey will find that both have been mistaken.\n\nI sincerely regret that clergymen who really believe that an infinite\nGod is on their side think it necessary to resort to such things\nto defeat one man. According to their idea, God is against me,\nand they ought to have confidence in this infinite wisdom and\nstrength to suppose that he could dispose of one man, even if they\nfailed to say a word against me. Had you not asked me I should\nhave said nothing to you on these topics. Such charges cannot hurt\nme. I do not believe it possible for such men to injure me. No\none believes what they say, and the testimony of such clergymen\nagainst an Infidel is no longer considered of value. I believe it\nwas Goethe who said, \"I always know that I am traveling when I hear\nthe dogs bark.\"\n\n_Question_. Are you going to make a formal reply to their sermons?\n\n_Answer_. Not unless something better is done than has been. Of\ncourse, I don't know what another Sabbath may bring forth. I am\nwaiting. But of one thing I feel perfectly assured; that no man\nin the United States, or in the world, can account for the fact,\nif we are to be saved only by faith in Christ, that Matthew forgot\nit, that Luke said nothing about it, and that Mark never mentioned\nit except in two passages written by _another_ person. Until that\nis answered, as one grave-digger says to the other in \"Hamlet,\" I\nshall say, \"Ay, tell me that and unyoke.\" In the meantime I wish\nto keep on the best terms with all parties concerned. I cannot\nsee why my forgiving spirit fails to gain their sincere praise.\n\n--_Chicago Tribune_, September 30, 1880.\n\n\nTHE REPUBLICAN VICTORY.\n\n_Question_. Do you really think, Colonel, that the country has\njust passed through a crisis?\n\n_Answer_. Yes; there was a crisis and a great one. The question\nwas whether a Northern or Southern idea of the powers and duties\nof the Federal Government was to prevail. The great victory of\nyesterday means that the Rebellion was not put down on the field\nof war alone, but that we have conquered in the realm of thought.\nThe bayonet has been justified by argument. No party can ever\nsucceed in this country that even whispers \"State Sovereignty.\"\nThat doctrine has become odious. The sovereignty of the State\nmeans a Government without power, and citizens without protection.\n\n_Question_. Can you see any further significance in the present\nRepublican victory other than that the people do not wish to change\nthe general policy of the present administration?\n\n_Answer_. Yes; the people have concluded that the lips of America\nshall be free. There never was free speech at the South, and there\nnever will be until the people of that section admit that the Nation\nis superior to the State, and that all citizens have equal rights.\nI know of hundreds who voted the Republican ticket because they\nregarded the South as hostile to free speech. The people were\nsatisfied with the financial policy of the Republicans, and they\nfeared a change. The North wants honest money--gold and silver.\nThe people are in favor of honest votes, and they feared the\npractices of the Democratic party. The tissue ballot and shotgun\npolicy made them hesitate to put power in the hands of the South.\nBesides, the tariff question made thousands and thousands of votes.\nAs long as Europe has slave labor, and wherever kings and priests\nrule, the laborer will be substantially a slave. We must protect\nourselves. If the world were free, trade would be free, and the\nseas would be the free highways of the world. The great objects\nof the Republican party are to preserve all the liberty we have,\nprotect American labor, and to make it the undisputed duty of the\nGovernment to protect every citizen at home and abroad.\n\n_Question_. What do you think was the main cause of the Republican\nsweep?\n\n_Answer_. The wisdom of the Republicans and the mistakes of the\nDemocrats. The Democratic party has for twenty years underrated\nthe intelligence, the patriotism and the honesty of the American\npeople. That party has always looked upon politics as a trade,\nand success as the last act of a cunning trick. It has had no\nprinciples, fixed or otherwise. It has always been willing to\nabandon everything but its prejudices. It generally commences\nwhere it left off and then goes backward. In this campaign English\nwas a mistake, Hancock was another. Nothing could have been more\nincongruous than yoking a Federal soldier with a peace-at-any-price\nDemocrat. Neither could praise the other without slandering himself,\nand the blindest partisan could not like them both. But, after\nall, I regard the military record of English as fully equal to the\nviews of General Hancock on the tariff. The greatest mistake that\nthe Democratic party made was to suppose that a campaign could be\nfought and won by slander. The American people like fair play and\nthey abhor ignorant and absurd vituperation. The continent knew\nthat General Garfield was an honest man; that he was in the grandest\nsense a gentleman; that he was patriotic, profound and learned;\nthat his private life was pure; that his home life was good and\nkind and true, and all the charges made and howled and screeched\nand printed and sworn to harmed only those who did the making and\nthe howling, the screeching and the swearing. I never knew a man\nin whose perfect integrity I had more perfect confidence, and in\nless than one year even the men who have slandered him will agree\nwith me.\n\n_Question_. How about that \"personal and confidential letter\"?\n(The Morey letter.)\n\n_Answer_. It was as stupid, as devilish, as basely born as\ngodfathered. It is an exploded forgery, and the explosion leaves\ndead and torn upon the field the author and his witnesses.\n\n_Question_. Is there anything in the charge that the Republican\nparty seeks to change our form of government by gradual centralization?\n\n_Answer_. Nothing whatever. We want power enough in the Government\nto protect, not to destroy, the liberties of the people. The\nhistory of the world shows that burglars have always opposed an\nincrease of the police.\n\n--_New York Herald_, November 5, 1880.\n\n\nINGERSOLL AND BEECHER.*\n\n[* The sensation created by the speech of the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher\nat the Academy of Music, in Brooklyn, when he uttered a brilliant eulogy\nof Col. Robert Ingersoll and publicly shook hands with him has not yet\nsubsided. A portion of the religious world is thoroughly stirred up at\nwhat it considers a gross breach of orthodox propriety. This feeling\nis especially strong among the class of positivists who believe that\n\n \"An Atheist's laugh's a poor exchange\n For Deity offended.\"\n\nMany believe that Mr. Beecher is at heart in full sympathy and\naccord with Ingersoll's teachings, but has not courage enough to\nsay so at the sacrifice of his pastoral position. The fact that\nthese two men are the very head and front of their respective\nschools of thought makes the matter an important one. The denouncement\nof the doctrine of eternal punishment, followed by the scene at\nthe Academy, has about it an aroma of suggestiveness that might\nwork much harm without an explanation. Since Colonel Ingersoll's\nrecent attack upon the _personnel_ of the clergy through the \"Shorter\nCatechism\" the pulpit has been remarkably silent regarding the\ngreat atheist. \"Is the keen logic and broad humanity of Ingersoll\nconverting the brain and heart of Christendom?\" was recently asked.\nDid the hand that was stretched out to him on the stage of the\nAcademy reach across the chasm which separates orthodoxy from\ninfidelity?\n\nDesiring to answer the last question if possible, a _Herald_ reporter\nvisited Mr. Beecher and Colonel Ingersoll to learn their opinion\nof each other. Neither of the gentlemen was aware that the other\nwas being interviewed.]\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of Mr. Beecher?\n\n_Answer_. I regard him as the greatest man in any pulpit of the\nworld. He treated me with a generosity that nothing can exceed.\nHe rose grandly above the prejudices supposed to belong to his\nclass, and acted as only a man could act without a chain upon his\nbrain and only kindness in his heart.\n\nI told him that night that I congratulated the world that it had\na minister with an intellectual horizon broad enough and a mental\nsky studded with stars of genius enough to hold all creeds in scorn\nthat shocked the heart of man. I think that Mr. Beecher has\nliberalized the English-speaking people of the world.\n\nI do not think he agrees with me. He holds to many things that I\nmost passionately deny. But in common, we believe in the liberty\nof thought.\n\nMy principal objections to orthodox religion are two--slavery here\nand hell hereafter. I do not believe that Mr. Beecher on these\npoints can disagree with me. The real difference between us is--\nhe says God, I say Nature. The real agreement between us is--we\nboth say--Liberty.\n\n_Question_. What is his forte?\n\n_Answer_. He is of a wonderfully poetic temperament. In pursuing\nany course of thought his mind is like a stream flowing through\nthe scenery of fairyland. The stream murmurs and laughs while the\nbanks grow green and the vines blossom.\n\nHis brain is controlled by his heart. He thinks in pictures. With\nhim logic means mental melody. The discordant is the absurd.\n\nFor years he has endeavored to hide the dungeon of orthodoxy with\nthe ivy of imagination. Now and then he pulls for a moment the\nleafy curtain aside and is horrified to see the lizards, snakes,\nbasilisks and abnormal monsters of the orthodox age, and then he\nutters a great cry, the protest of a loving, throbbing heart.\n\nHe is a great thinker, a marvelous orator, and, in my judgment,\ngreater and grander than any creed of any church.\n\nBesides all this, he treated me like a king. Manhood is his forte,\nand I expect to live and die his friend.\n\nBEECHER ON INGERSOLL.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of Colonel Ingersoll?\n\n_Answer_. I do not think there should be any misconception as to\nmy motive for indorsing Mr. Ingersoll. I never saw him before that\nnight, when I clasped his hand in the presence of an assemblage of\ncitizens. Yet I regard him as one of the greatest men of this age.\n\n_Question_. Is his influence upon the world good or otherwise?\n\n_Answer_. I am an ordained clergyman and believe in revealed\nreligion. I am, therefore, bound to regard all persons who do not\nbelieve in revealed religion as in error. But on the broad platform\nof human liberty and progress I was bound to give him the right\nhand of fellowship. I would do it a thousand times over. I do\nnot know Colonel Ingersoll's religious views precisely, but I have\na general knowledge of them. He has the same right to free thought\nand free speech that I have. I am not that kind of a coward who\nhas to kick a man before he shakes hands with him. If I did so I\nwould have to kick the Methodists, Roman Catholics and all other\ncreeds. I will not pitch into any man's religion as an excuse for\ngiving him my hand. I admire Ingersoll because he is not afraid\nto speak what he honestly thinks, and I am only sorry that he does\nnot think as I do. I never heard so much brilliancy and pith put\ninto a two hour speech as I did on that night. I wish my whole\ncongregation had been there to hear it. I regret that there are\nnot more men like Ingersoll interested in the affairs of the nation.\nI do not wish to be understood as indorsing skepticism in any form.\n\n--_New York Herald_, November 7, 1880.\n\n\nPOLITICAL.\n\n_Question_. Is it true, as rumored, that you intend to leave\nWashington and reside in New York?\n\n_Answer_. No, I expect to remain here for years to come, so far\nas I can now see. My present intention is certainly to stay here\nduring the coming winter.\n\n_Question_. Is this because you regard Washington as the pleasantest\nand most advantageous city for a residence?\n\n_Answer_. Well, in the first place, I dislike to move. In the\nnext place, the climate is good. In the third place, the political\natmosphere has been growing better of late, and when you consider\nthat I avoid one dislike and reap the benefits of two likes, you\ncan see why I remain.\n\n_Question_. Do you think that the moral atmosphere will improve\nwith the political atmosphere?\n\n_Answer_. I would hate to say that this city is capable of any\nimprovement in the way of morality. We have a great many churches,\na great many ministers, and, I believe, some retired chaplains, so\nI take it that the moral tone of the place could hardly be bettered.\nOne majority in the Senate might help it. Seriously, however, I\nthink that Washington has as high a standard of morality as any\ncity in the Union. And it is one of the best towns in which to\nloan money without collateral in the world.\n\n_Question_. Do you know this from experience?\n\n_Answer_. This I have been told [was the solemn answer.]\n\n_Question_. Do you think that the political features of the incoming\nadministration will differ from the present?\n\n_Answer_. Of course, I have no right to speak for General Garfield.\nI believe his administration will be Republican, at the same time\nperfectly kind, manly, and generous. He is a man to harbor no\nresentment. He knows that it is the duty of statesmanship to remove\ncauses of irritation rather then punish the irritated.\n\n_Question_. Do I understand you to imply that there will be a\nneutral policy, as it were, towards the South?\n\n_Answer_. No, I think that there will be nothing neutral about\nit. I think that the next administration will be one-sided--that\nis, it will be on the right side. I know of no better definition\nfor a compromise than to say it is a proceeding in which hypocrites\ndeceive each other. I do not believe that the incoming administration\nwill be neutral in anything. The American people do not like\nneutrality. They would rather a man were on the wrong side than\non neither. And, in my judgment, there is no paper so utterly\nunfair, malicious and devilish, as one that claims to be neutral.\nNo politician is as bitter as a neutral politician. Neutrality is\ngenerally used as a mask to hide unusual bitterness. Sometimes it\nhides what it is--nothing. It always stands for hollowness of head\nor bitterness of heart, sometimes for both. My idea is--and that\nis the only reason I have the right to express it--that General\nGarfield believes in the platform adopted by the Republican party.\nHe believes in free speech, in honest money, in divorce of church\nand state, and he believes in the protection of American citizens\nby the Federal Government wherever the flag flies. He believes\nthat the Federal Government is as much bound to protect the citizen\nat home as abroad. I believe he will do the very best he can to\ncarry these great ideas into execution and make them living realities\nin the United States. Personally, I have no hatred toward the\nSouthern people. I have no hatred toward any class. I hate tyranny,\nno matter whether it is South or North; I hate hypocrisy, and I\nhate above all things, the spirit of caste. If the Southern people\ncould only see that they gained as great a victory in the Rebellion\nas the North did, and some day they will see it, the whole question\nwould be settled. The South has reaped a far greater benefit from\nbeing defeated than the North has from being successful, and I\nbelieve some day the South will be great enough to appreciate that\nfact. I have always insisted that to be beaten by the right is to\nbe a victor. The Southern people must get over the idea that they\nare insulted simply because they are out-voted, and they ought by\nthis time to know that the Republicans of the North, not only do\nnot wish them harm, but really wish them the utmost success.\n\n_Question_. But has the Republican party all the good and the\nDemocratic all the bad?\n\n_Answer_. No, I do not think that the Republican party has all\nthe good, nor do I pretend that the Democratic party has all the\nbad; though I may say that each party comes pretty near it. I\nadmit that there are thousands of really good fellows in the\nDemocratic party, and there are some pretty bad people in the\nRepublican party. But I honestly believe that within the latter\nare most of the progressive men of this country. That party has\nin it the elements of growth. It is full of hope. It anticipates.\nThe Democratic party remembers. It is always talking about the\npast. It is the possessor of a vast amount of political rubbish,\nand I really believe it has outlived its usefulness. I firmly\nbelieve that your editor, Mr. Hutchings, could start a better\norganization, if he would only turn his attention to it. Just\nthink for a moment of the number you could get rid of by starting\na new party. A hundred names will probably suggest themselves to\nany intelligent Democrat, the loss of which would almost insure\nsuccess. Some one has said that a tailor in Boston made a fortune\nby advertising that he did not cut the breeches of Webster's statue.\nA new party by advertising that certain men would not belong to\nit, would have an advantage in the next race.\n\n_Question_. What, in your opinion, were the causes which led to\nthe Democratic defeat?\n\n_Answer_. I think the nomination of English was exceedingly\nunfortunate. Indiana, being an October State, the best man in that\nState should have been nominated either for President or Vice-\nPresident. Personally, I know nothing of Mr. English, but I have\nthe right to say that he was exceedingly unpopular. That was\nmistake number one. Mistake number two was putting a plank in the\nplatform insisting upon a tariff for revenue only. That little\nword \"only\" was one of the most frightful mistakes ever made by a\npolitical party. That little word \"only\" was a millstone around\nthe neck of the entire campaign. The third mistake was Hancock's\ndefinition of the tariff. It was exceedingly unfortunate, exceedingly\nlaughable, and came just in the nick of time. The fourth mistake\nwas the speech of Wade Hampton, I mean the speech that the Republican\npapers claim he made. Of course I do not know, personally, whether\nit was made or not. If made, it was a great mistake. Mistake\nnumber five was made in Alabama, where they refused to allow a\nGreenbacker to express his opinion. That lost the Democrats enough\nGreenbackers to turn the scale in Maine, and enough in Indiana to\nchange that election. Mistake number six was in the charges made\nagainst General Garfield. They were insisted upon, magnified and\nmultiplied until at last the whole thing assumed the proportions\nof a malicious libel. This was a great mistake, for the reason\nthat a number of Democrats in the United States had most heartily\nand cordially indorsed General Garfield as a man of integrity and\ngreat ability. Such indorsements had been made by the leading\nDemocrats of the North and South, among them Governor Hendricks\nand many others I might name. Jere Black had also certified to\nthe integrity and intellectual grandeur of General Garfield, and\nwhen afterward he certified to the exact contrary, the people\nbelieved that it was a persecution. The next mistake, number seven,\nwas the Chinese letter. While it lost Garfield California, Nevada,\nand probably New Jersey, it did him good in New York. This letter\nwas the greatest mistake made, because a crime is greater than a\nmistake. These, in my judgment, are the principal mistakes made\nby the Democratic party in the campaign. Had McDonald been on the\nticket the result might have been different, or had the party united\non some man in New York, satisfactory to the factions, it might\nhave succeeded. The truth, however, is that the North to-day is\nRepublican, and it may be that had the Democratic party made no\nmistakes whatever the result would have been the same. But that\nmistakes were made is now perfectly evident to the blindest partisan.\nIf the ticket originally suggested, Seymour and McDonald, had been\nnominated on an unobjectionable platform, the result might have\nbeen different. One of the happiest days in my life was the day on\nwhich the Cincinnati convention did not nominate Seymour and did\nnominate English. I regard General Hancock as a good soldier, but\nnot particularly qualified to act as President. He has neither\nthe intellectual training nor the experience to qualify him for\nthat place.\n\n_Question_. You have doubtless heard of a new party, Colonel.\nWhat is your idea in regard to it?\n\n_Answer_. I have heard two or three speak of a new party to be\ncalled the National party, or National Union party, but whether\nthere is anything in such a movement I have no means of knowing.\nAny party in opposition to the Republican, no matter what it may\nbe called, must win on a new issue, and that new issue will determine\nthe new party. Parties cannot be made to order. They must grow.\nThey are the natural offspring of national events. They must embody\ncertain hopes, they must gratify, or promise to gratify, the feelings\nof a vast number of people. No man can make a party, and if a new\nparty springs into existence it will not be brought forth to gratify\nthe wishes of a few, but the wants of the many. It has seemed to\nme for years that the Democratic party carried too great a load in\nthe shape of record; that its autobiography was nearly killing it\nall the time, and that if it could die just long enough to assume\nanother form at the resurrection, just long enough to leave a grave\nstone to mark the end of its history, to get a cemetery back of\nit, that it might hope for something like success. In other words,\nthat there must be a funeral before there can be victory. Most of\nits leaders are worn out. They have become so accustomed to defeat\nthat they take it as a matter of course; they expect it in the\nbeginning and seem unconsciously to work for it. There must be\nsome new ideas, and this only can happen when the party as such\nhas been gathered to its fathers. I do not think that the advice\nof Senator Hill will be followed. He is willing to kill the\nDemocratic party in the South if we will kill the Republican party\nin the North. This puts me in mind of what the rooster said to\nthe horse: \"Let us agree not to step on each other's feet.\"\n\n_Question_. Your views of the country's future and prospects must\nnaturally be rose colored?\n\n_Answer_. Of course, I look at things through Republican eyes and\nmay be prejudiced without knowing it. But it really seems to me\nthat the future is full of great promise. The South, after all,\nis growing more prosperous. It is producing more and more every\nyear, until in time it will become wealthy. The West is growing\nalmost beyond the imagination of a speculator, and the Eastern and\nMiddle States are much more than holding their own. We have now\nfifty millions of people and in a few years will have a hundred.\nThat we are a Nation I think is now settled. Our growth will be\nunparalleled. I myself expect to live to see as many ships on the\nPacific as on the Atlantic. In a few years there will probably be\nten millions of people living along the Rocky and Sierra Mountains.\nIt will not be long until Illinois will find her market west of\nher. In fifty years this will be the greatest nation on the earth,\nand the most populous in the civilized world. China is slowly\nawakening from the lethargy of centuries. It will soon have the\nwants of Europe, and America will supply those wants. This is a\nnation of inventors and there is more mechanical ingenuity in the\nUnited States than on the rest of the globe. In my judgment this\ncountry will in a short time add to its customers hundreds of\nmillions of the people of the Celestial Empire. So you see, to\nme, the future is exceedingly bright. And besides all this, I must\nnot forget the thing that is always nearest my heart. There is\nmore intellectual liberty in the United States to-day than ever\nbefore. The people are beginning to see that every citizen ought\nto have the right to express himself freely upon every possible\nsubject. In a little while, all the barbarous laws that now disgrace\nthe statute books of the States by discriminating against a man\nsimply because he is honest, will be repealed, and there will be\none country where all citizens will have and enjoy not only equal\nrights, but all rights. Nothing gratifies me so much as the growth\nof intellectual liberty. After all, the true civilization is where\nevery man gives to every other, every right that he claims for\nhimself.\n\n--_The Post_, Washington, D. C., November 14, 1880.\n\n\nRELIGION IN POLITICS.\n\n_Question_. How do you regard the present political situation?\n\n_Answer_. My opinion is that the ideas the North fought for upon\nthe field have at last triumphed at the ballot-box. For several\nyears after the Rebellion was put down the Southern ideas traveled\nNorth. We lost West Virginia, New Jersey, Connecticut, New York\nand a great many congressional districts in other States. We lost\nboth houses of Congress and every Southern State. The Southern\nideas reached their climax in 1876. In my judgment the tide has\nturned, and hereafter the Northern idea is going South. The young\nmen are on the Republican side. The old Democrats are dying. The\ncradle is beating the coffin. It is a case of life and death, and\nlife is ahead. The heirs outnumber the administrators.\n\n_Question_. What kind of a President will Garfield make?\n\n_Answer_. My opinion is that he will make as good a President as\nthis nation ever had. He is fully equipped. He is a trained\nstatesman. He has discussed all the great questions that have\narisen for the last eighteen years, and with great ability. He is\na thorough scholar, a conscientious student, and takes an exceedingly\ncomprehensive survey of all questions. He is genial, generous and\ncandid, and has all the necessary qualities of heart and brain to\nmake a great President. He has no prejudices. Prejudice is the\nchild and flatterer of ignorance. He is firm, but not obstinate.\nThe obstinate man wants his own way; the firm man stands by the\nright. Andrew Johnson was obstinate--Lincoln was firm.\n\n_Question_. How do you think he will treat the South?\n\n_Answer_. Just the same as the North. He will be the President\nof the whole country. He will not execute the laws by the compass,\nbut according to the Constitution. I do not speak for General\nGarfield, nor by any authority from his friends. No one wishes to\ninjure the South. The Republican party feels in honor bound to\nprotect all citizens, white and black. It must do this in order\nto keep its self-respect. It must throw the shield of the Nation\nover the weakest, the humblest and the blackest citizen. Any other\ncourse is suicide. No thoughtful Southern man can object to this,\nand a Northern Democrat knows that it is right.\n\n_Question_. Is there a probability that Mr. Sherman will be retained\nin the Cabinet?\n\n_Answer_. I have no knowledge upon that question, and consequently\nhave nothing to say. My opinion about the Cabinet is, that General\nGarfield is well enough acquainted with public men to choose a\nCabinet that will suit him and the country. I have never regarded\nit as the proper thing to try and force a Cabinet upon a President.\nHe has the right to be surrounded by his friends, by men in whose\njudgment and in whose friendship he has the utmost confidence, and\nI would no more think of trying to put some man in the Cabinet that\nI would think of signing a petition that a man should marry a\ncertain woman. General Garfield will, I believe, select his own\nconstitutional advisers, and he will take the best he knows.\n\n_Question_. What, in your opinion, is the condition of the Democratic\nparty at present?\n\n_Answer_. It must get a new set of principles, and throw away its\nprejudices. It must demonstrate its capacity to govern the country\nby governing the States where it is in power. In the presence of\nrebellion it gave up the ship. The South must become Republican\nbefore the North will willingly give it power; that is, the great\nideas of nationality are greater than parties, and if our flag is\nnot large enough to protect every citizen, we must add a few more\nstars and stripes. Personally I have no hatreds in this matter.\nThe present is not only the child of the past, but the necessary\nchild. A statesman must deal with things as they are. He must\nnot be like Gladstone, who divides his time between foreign wars\nand amendments to the English Book of Common Prayer.\n\n_Question_. How do you regard the religious question in politics?\n\n_Answer_. Religion is a personal matter--a matter that each\nindividual soul should be allowed to settle for itself. No man\nshod in the brogans of impudence should walk into the temple of\nanother man's soul. While every man should be governed by the\nhighest possible considerations of the public weal, no one has the\nright to ask for legal assistance in the support of his particular\nsect. If Catholics oppose the public schools I would not oppose\nthem because they are Catholics, but because I am in favor of the\nschools. I regard the public school as the intellectual bread of\nlife. Personally I have no confidence in any religion that can be\ndemonstrated only to children. I suspect all creeds that rely\nimplicitly on mothers and nurses. That religion is the best that\ncommends itself the strongest to men and women of education and\ngenius. After all, the prejudices of infancy and the ignorance of\nthe aged are a poor foundation for any system of morals or faith.\nI respect every honest man, and I think more of a liberal Catholic\nthan of an illiberal Infidel. The religious question should be\nleft out of politics. You might as well decide questions of art\nand music by a ward caucus as to govern the longings and dreams of\nthe soul by law. I believe in letting the sun shine whether the\nweeds grow or not. I can never side with Protestants if they try\nto put Catholics down by law, and I expect to oppose both of these\nuntil religious intolerance is regarded as a crime.\n\n_Question_. Is the religious movement of which you are the chief\nexponent spreading?\n\n_Answer_. There are ten times as many Freethinkers this year as\nthere were last. Civilization is the child of free thought. The\nnew world has drifted away from the rotting wharf of superstition.\nThe politics of this country are being settled by the new ideas of\nindividual liberty; and parties and churches that cannot accept\nthe new truths must perish. I want it perfectly understood that\nI am not a politician. I believe in liberty and I want to see the\ntime when every man, woman and child will enjoy every human right.\n\nThe election is over, the passions aroused by the campaign will\nsoon subside, the sober judgment of the people will, in my opinion,\nindorse the result, and time will indorse the indorsement.\n\n--_The Evening Express_, New York City, November 19, 1880.\n\n\nMIRACLES AND IMMORTALITY.\n\n_Question_. You have seen some accounts of the recent sermon of\nDr. Tyng on \"Miracles,\" I presume, and if so, what is your opinion\nof the sermon, and also what is your opinion of miracles?\n\n_Answer_. From an orthodox standpoint, I think the Rev. Dr. Tyng\nis right. If miracles were necessary eighteen hundred years ago,\nbefore scientific facts enough were known to overthrow hundreds\nand thousands of passages in the Bible, certainly they are necessary\nnow. Dr. Tyng sees clearly that the old miracles are nearly worn\nout, and that some new ones are absolutely essential. He takes\nfor granted that, if God would do a miracle to found his gospel,\nhe certainly would do some more to preserve it, and that it is in\nneed of preservation about now is evident. I am amazed that the\nreligious world should laugh at him for believing in miracles. It\nseems to me just as reasonable that the deaf, dumb, blind and lame,\nshould be cured at Lourdes as at Palestine. It certainly is no\nmore wonderful that the law of nature should be broken now than\nthat it was broken several thousand years ago. Dr. Tyng also has\nthis advantage. The witnesses by whom he proves these miracles\nare alive. An unbeliever can have the opportunity of cross-\nexamination. Whereas, the miracles in the New Testament are\nsubstantiated only by the dead. It is just as reasonable to me\nthat blind people receive their sight in France as that devils were\nmade to vacate human bodies in the holy land.\n\nFor one I am exceedingly glad that Dr. Tyng has taken this position.\nIt shows that he is a believer in a personal God, in a God who is\nattending a little to the affairs of this world, and in a God who\ndid not exhaust his supplies in the apostolic age. It is refreshing\nto me to find in this scientific age a gentleman who still believes\nin miracles. My opinion is that all thorough religionists will have\nto take the ground and admit that a supernatural religion must be\nsupernaturally preserved.\n\nI have been asking for a miracle for several years, and have in a\nvery mild, gentle and loving way, taunted the church for not\nproducing a little one. I have had the impudence to ask any number\nof them to join in a prayer asking anything they desire for the\npurpose of testing the efficiency of what is known as supplication.\nThey answer me by calling my attention to the miracles recorded in\nthe New Testament. I insist, however, on a new miracle, and,\npersonally, I would like to see one now. Certainly, the Infinite\nhas not lost his power, and certainly the Infinite knows that\nthousands and hundreds of thousands, if the Bible is true, are now\npouring over the precipice of unbelief into the gulf of hell. One\nlittle miracle would save thousands. One little miracle in Pittsburg,\nwell authenticated, would do more good than all the preaching ever\nheard in this sooty town. The Rev. Dr. Tyng clearly sees this,\nand he has been driven to the conclusion, first, that God can do\nmiracles; second, that he ought to, third, that he has. In this\nhe is perfectly logical. After a man believes the Bible, after he\nbelieves in the flood and in the story of Jonah, certainly he ought\nnot to hesitate at a miracle of to-day. When I say I want a miracle,\nI mean by that, I want a good one. All the miracles recorded in\nthe New Testament could have been simulated. A fellow could have\npretended to be dead, or blind, or dumb, or deaf. I want to see\na good miracle. I want to see a man with one leg, and then I want\nto see the other leg grow out.\n\nI would like to see a miracle like that performed in North Carolina.\nTwo men were disputing about the relative merits of the salve they\nhad for sale. One of the men, in order to demonstrate that his\nsalve was better than any other, cut off a dog's tail and applied\na little of the salve to the stump, and, in the presence of the\nspectators, a new tail grew out. But the other man, who also had\nsalve for sale, took up the piece of tail that had been cast away,\nput a little salve at the end of that, and a new dog grew out, and\nthe last heard of those parties they were quarrelling as to who\nowned the second dog. Something like that is what I call a miracle.\n\n_Question_. What do you believe about the immortality of the soul?\nDo you believe that the spirit lives as an individual after the\nbody is dead?\n\n_Answer_. I have said a great many times that it is no more\nwonderful that we should live again than that we do live. Sometimes\nI have thought it not quite so wonderful for the reason that we\nhave a start. But upon that subject I have not the slightest\ninformation. Whether man lives again or not I cannot pretend to\nsay. There may be another world and there may not be. If there\nis another world we ought to make the best of it after arriving\nthere. If there is not another world, or if there is another world,\nwe ought to make the best of this. And since nobody knows, all\nshould be permitted to have their opinions, and my opinion is that\nnobody knows.\n\nIf we take the Old Testament for authority, man is not immortal.\nThe Old Testament shows man how he lost immortality. According to\nGenesis, God prevented man from putting forth his hand and eating\nof the Tree of Life. It is there stated, had he succeeded, man\nwould have lived forever. God drove him from the garden, preventing\nhim eating of this tree, and in consequence man became mortal; so\nthat if we go by the Old Testament we are compelled to give up\nimmortality. The New Testament has but little on the subject. In\none place we are told to seek for immortality. If we are already\nimmortal, it is hard to see why we should go on seeking for it.\nIn another place we are told that they who are worthy to obtain\nthat world and the resurrection of the dead, are not given in\nmarriage. From this one would infer there would be some unworthy\nto be raised from the dead. Upon the question of immortality, the\nOld Testament throws but little satisfactory light. I do not deny\nimmortality, nor would I endeavor to shake the belief of anybody\nin another life. What I am endeavoring to do is to put out the\nfires of hell. If we cannot have heaven without hell, I am in\nfavor of abolishing heaven. I do not want to go to heaven if one\nsoul is doomed to agony. I would rather be annihilated.\n\nMy opinion of immortality is this:\n\nFirst.--I live, and that of itself is infinitely wonderful.\n\nSecond.--There was a time when I was not, and after I was not, I\nwas. Third.--Now that I am, I may be again; and it is no more\nwonderful that I may be again, if I have been, than that I am,\nhaving once been nothing. If the churches advocated immortality,\nif they advocated eternal justice, if they said that man would be\nrewarded and punished according to deeds; if they admitted that\nsome time in eternity there would be an opportunity given to lift\nup souls, and that throughout all the ages the angels of progress\nand virtue would beckon the fallen upward; and that some time, and\nno matter how far away they might put off the time, all the children\nof men would be reasonably happy, I never would say a solitary word\nagainst the church, but just as long as they preach that the majority\nof mankind will suffer eternal pain, just so long I shall oppose\nthem; that is to say, as long as I live.\n\n_Question_. Do you believe in a God; and, if so, what kind of a\nGod?\n\n_Answer_. Let me, in the first place, lay a foundation for an\nanswer.\n\nFirst.--Man gets all food for thought through the medium of the\nsenses. The effect of nature upon the senses, and through the\nsenses upon the brain, must be natural. All food for thought,\nthen, is natural. As a consequence of this, there can be no\nsupernatural idea in the human brain. Whatever idea there is must\nhave been a natural product. If, then, there is no supernatural\nidea in the human brain, then there cannot be in the human brain\nan idea of the supernatural. If we can have no idea of the\nsupernatural, and if the God of whom you spoke is admitted to be\nsupernatural, then, of course, I can have no idea of him, and I\ncertainly can have no very fixed belief on any subject about which\nI have no idea.\n\nThere may be a God for all I know. There may be thousands of them.\nBut the idea of an infinite Being outside and independent of nature\nis inconceivable. I do not know of any word that would explain my\ndoctrine or my views upon the subject. I suppose Pantheism is as\nnear as I could go. I believe in the eternity of matter and in\nthe eternity of intelligence, but I do not believe in any Being\noutside of nature. I do not believe in any personal Deity. I do\nnot believe in any aristocracy of the air. I know nothing about\norigin or destiny. Between these two horizons I live, whether I\nwish to or not, and must be satisfied with what I find between\nthese two horizons. I have never heard any God described that I\nbelieve in. I have never heard any religion explained that I\naccept. To make something out of nothing cannot be more absurd\nthan that an infinite intelligence made this world, and proceeded\nto fill it with crime and want and agony, and then, not satisfied\nwith the evil he had wrought, made a hell in which to consummate\nthe great mistake.\n\n_Question_. Do you believe that the world, and all that is in it\ncame by chance?\n\n_Answer_. I do not believe anything comes by chance. I regard\nthe present as the necessary child of a necessary past. I believe\nmatter is eternal; that it has eternally existed and eternally will\nexist. I believe that in all matter, in some way, there is what\nwe call force; that one of the forms of force is intelligence. I\nbelieve that whatever is in the universe has existed from eternity\nand will forever exist.\n\nSecondly.--I exclude from my philosophy all ideas of chance. Matter\nchanges eternally its form, never its essence. You cannot conceive\nof anything being created. No one can conceive of anything existing\nwithout a cause or with a cause. Let me explain; a thing is not\na cause until an effect has been produced; so that, after all,\ncause and effect are twins coming into life at precisely the same\ninstant, born of the womb of an unknown mother. The Universe in\nthe only fact, and everything that ever has happened, is happening,\nor will happen, are but the different aspects of the one eternal\nfact.\n\n--_The Dispatch_, Pittsburg, Pa., December 11, 1880.\n\n\nTHE POLITICAL OUTLOOK.\n\n_Question_. What phases will the Southern question assume in the\nnext four years?\n\n_Answer_. The next Congress should promptly unseat every member\nof Congress in whose district there was not a fair and honest\nelection. That is the first hard work to be done. Let notice, in\nthis way, be given to the whole country, that fraud cannot succeed.\nNo man should be allowed to hold a seat by force or fraud. Just\nas soon as it is understood that fraud is useless it will be\nabandoned. In that way the honest voters of the whole country can\nbe protected.\n\nAn honest vote settles the Southern question, and Congress has the\npower to compel an honest vote, or to leave the dishonest districts\nwithout representation. I want this policy adopted, not only in\nthe South, but in the North. No man touched or stained with fraud\nshould be allowed to hold his seat. Send such men home, and let\nthem stay there until sent back by honest votes. The Southern\nquestion is a Northern question, and the Republican party must\nsettle it for all time. We must have honest elections, or the\nRepublic must fall. Illegal voting must be considered and punished\nas a crime.\n\nTaking one hundred and seventy thousand as the basis of representation,\nthe South, through her astounding increase of colored population,\ngains three electoral votes, while the North and East lose three.\nGarfield was elected by the thirty thousand colored votes cast in\nNew York.\n\n_Question_. Will the negro continue to be the balance of power,\nand if so, will it inure to his benefit?\n\n_Answer_. The more political power the colored man has the better\nhe will be treated, and if he ever holds the balance of power he\nwill be treated as well as the balance of our citizens. My idea\nis that the colored man should stand on an equality with the white\nbefore the law; that he should honestly be protected in all his\nrights; that he should be allowed to vote, and that his vote should\nbe counted. It is a simple question of honesty. The colored people\nare doing well; they are industrious; they are trying to get an\neducation, and, on the whole, I think they are behaving fully as\nwell as the whites. They are the most forgiving people in the\nworld, and about the only real Christians in our country. They\nhave suffered enough, and for one I am on their side. I think more\nof honest black people than of dishonest whites, to say the least\nof it.\n\n_Question_. Do you apprehend any trouble from the Southern leaders\nin this closing session of Congress, in attempts to force pernicious\nlegislation?\n\n_Answer_. I do not. The Southern leaders know that the doctrine\nof State Sovereignty is dead. They know that they cannot depend\nupon the Northern Democrat, and they know that the best interests\nof the South can only be preserved by admitting that the war settled\nthe questions and ideas fought for and against. They know that\nthis country is a Nation, and that no party can possibly succeed\nthat advocates anything contrary to that. My own opinion is that\nmost of the Southern leaders are heartily ashamed of the course\npursued by their Northern friends, and will take the first opportunity\nto say so.\n\n_Question_. In what light do you regard the Chinaman?\n\n_Answer_. I am opposed to compulsory immigration, or cooley or\nslave immigration. If Chinamen are sent to this country by\ncorporations or companies under contracts that amount to slavery\nor anything like it or near it, then I am opposed to it. But I am\nnot prepared to say that I would be opposed to voluntary immigration.\nI see by the papers that a new treaty has been agreed upon that\nwill probably be ratified and be satisfactory to all parties. We\nought to treat China with the utmost fairness. If our treaty is\nwrong, amend it, but do so according to the recognized usage of\nnations. After what has been said and done in this country I think\nthere is very little danger of any Chinaman voluntarily coming\nhere. By this time China must have an exceedingly exalted opinion\nof our religion, and of the justice and hospitality born of our\nmost holy faith.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of making ex-Presidents Senators\nfor life?\n\n_Answer_. I am opposed to it. I am against any man holding office\nfor life. And I see no more reason for making ex-Presidents\nSenators, than for making ex-Senators Presidents. To me the idea\nis preposterous. Why should ex-Presidents be taken care of? In\nthis country labor is not disgraceful, and after a man has been\nPresident he has still the right to be useful. I am personally\nacquainted with several men who will agree, in consideration of\nbeing elected to the presidency, not to ask for another office\nduring their natural lives. The people of this country should\nnever allow a great man to suffer. The hand, not of charity, but\nof justice and generosity, should be forever open to those who have\nperformed great public service.\n\nBut the ex-Presidents of the future may not all be great and good\nmen, and bad ex-Presidents will not make good Senators. If the\nnation does anything, let it give a reasonable pension to ex-\nPresidents. No man feels like giving pension, power, or place to\nGeneral Grant simply because he was once President, but because he\nwas a great soldier, and led the armies of the nation to victory.\nMake him a General, and retire him with the highest military title.\nLet him grandly wear the laurels he so nobly won, and should the\nsky at any time be darkened with a cloud of foreign war, this\ncountry will again hand him the sword. Such a course honors the\nnation and the man.\n\n_Question_. Are we not entering upon the era of our greatest\nprosperity?\n\n_Answer_. We are just beginning to be prosperous. The Northern\nPacific Railroad is to be completed. Forty millions of dollars\nhave just been raised by that company, and new States will soon be\nborn in the great Northwest. The Texas Pacific will be pushed to\nSan Diego, and in a few years we will ride in a Pullman car from\nChicago to the City of Mexico. The gold and silver mines are\nyielding more and more, and within the last ten years more than\nforty million acres of land have been changed from wilderness to\nfarms. This country is beginning to grow. We have just fairly\nentered upon what I believe will be the grandest period of national\ndevelopment and prosperity. With the Republican party in power;\nwith good money; with unlimited credit; with the best land in the\nworld; with ninety thousand miles of railway; with mountains of\ngold and silver; with hundreds of thousands of square miles of coal\nfields; with iron enough for the whole world; with the best system\nof common schools; with telegraph wires reaching every city and\ntown, so that no two citizens are an hour apart; with the telephone,\nthat makes everybody in the city live next door, and with the best\nfolks in the world, how can we help prospering until the continent\nis covered with happy homes?\n\n_Question_. What do you think of civil service reform?\n\n_Answer_. I am in favor of it. I want such civil service reform\nthat all the offices will be filled with good and competent\nRepublicans. The majority should rule, and the men who are in\nfavor of the views of the majority should hold the offices. I am\nutterly opposed to the idea that a party should show its liberality\nat the expense of its principles. Men holding office can afford\nto take their chances with the rest of us. If they are Democrats,\nthey should not expect to succeed when their party is defeated.\nI believe that there are enough good and honest Republicans in this\ncountry to fill all the offices, and I am opposed to taking any\nDemocrats until the Republican supply is exhausted.\n\nMen should not join the Republican party to get office. Such men\nare contemptible to the last degree. Neither should a Republican\nadministration compel a man to leave the party to get a Federal\nappointment. After a great battle has been fought I do not believe\nthat the victorious general should reward the officers of the\nconquered army. My doctrine is, rewards for friends.\n\n--_The Commercial_, Cincinnati, Ohio, December 6, 1880.\n\n\nMR. BEECHER, MOSES AND THE NEGRO.\n\n_Question_. Mr. Beecher is here. Have you seen him?\n\n_Answer_. No, I did not meet Mr. Beecher. Neither did I hear him\nlecture. The fact is, that long ago I made up my mind that under\nno circumstances would I attend any lecture or other entertainment\ngiven at Lincoln Hall. First, because the hall has been denied\nme, and secondly, because I regard it as extremely unsafe. The\nhall is up several stories from the ground, and in case of the\nslightest panic, in my judgment, many lives would be lost. Had it\nnot been for this, and for the fact that the persons owning it\nimagined that because they had control, the brick and mortar had\nsome kind of holy and sacred quality, and that this holiness is of\nsuch a wonderful character that it would not be proper for a man\nin that hall to tell his honest thoughts, I would have heard him.\n\n_Question_. Then I assume that you and Mr. Beecher have made up?\n\n_Answer_. There is nothing to be made up for so far as I know.\nMr. Beecher has treated me very well, and, I believe, a little too\nwell for his own peace of mind. I have been informed that some\nmembers of Plymouth Church felt exceedingly hurt that their pastor\nshould so far forget himself as to extend the right hand of fellowship\nto one who differs from him upon what they consider very essential\npoints in theology. You see I have denied with all my might, a\ngreat many times, the infamous doctrine of eternal punishment. I\nhave also had the temerity to suggest that I did not believe that\na being of infinite justice and mercy was the author of all that\nI find in the Old Testament. As, for instance, I have insisted\nthat God never commanded anybody to butcher women or to cut the\nthroats of prattling babes. These orthodox gentlemen have rushed\nto the rescue of Jehovah by insisting that he did all these horrible\nthings. I have also maintained that God never sanctioned or upheld\nhuman slavery; that he never would make one child to own and beat\nanother.\n\nI have also expressed some doubts as to whether this same God ever\nestablished the institution of polygamy. I have insisted that the\ninstitution is simply infamous; that it destroys the idea of home;\nthat it turns to ashes the most sacred words in our language, and\nleaves the world a kind of den in which crawl the serpents of\nselfishness and lust. I have been informed that after Mr. Beecher\nhad treated me kindly a few members of his congregation objected,\nand really felt ashamed that he had so forgotten himself. After\nthat, Mr. Beecher saw fit to give his ideas of the position I had\ntaken. In this he was not exceedingly kind, nor was his justice\nvery conspicuous. But I cared nothing about that, not the least.\nAs I have said before, whenever Mr. Beecher says a good thing I\ngive him credit. Whenever he does an unfair or unjust thing I\ncharge it to the account of his religion. I have insisted, and I\nstill insist, that Mr. Beecher is far better than his creed. I do\nnot believe that he believes in the doctrine of eternal punishment.\nNeither do I believe that he believes in the literal truth of the\nScriptures. And, after all, if the Bible is not true, it is hardly\nworth while to insist upon its inspiration. An inspired lie is\nnot better than an uninspired one. If the Bible is true it does\nnot need to be inspired. If it is not true, inspiration does not\nhelp it. So that after all it is simply a question of fact. Is\nit true? I believe Mr. Beecher stated that one of my grievous\nfaults was that I picked out the bad things in the Bible. How an\ninfinitely good and wise God came to put bad things in his book\nMr. Beecher does not explain. I have insisted that the Bible is\nnot inspired, and, in order to prove that, have pointed out such\npassages as I deemed unworthy to have been written even by a\ncivilized man or a savage. I certainly would not endeavor to prove\nthat the Bible is uninspired by picking out its best passages. I\nadmit that there are many good things in the Bible. The fact that\nthere are good things in it does not prove its inspiration, because\nthere are thousands of other books containing good things, and yet\nno one claims they are inspired. Shakespeare's works contain a\nthousand times more good things than the Bible, but no one claims\nhe was an inspired man. It is also true that there are many bad\nthings in Shakespeare--many passages which I wish he had never\nwritten. But I can excuse Shakespeare, because he did not rise\nabsolutely above his time. That is to say, he was a man; that is\nto say, he was imperfect. If anybody claimed now that Shakespeare\nwas actually inspired, that claim would be answered by pointing to\ncertain weak or bad or vulgar passages in his works. But every\nChristian will say that it is a certain kind of blasphemy to impute\nvulgarity or weakness to God, as they are all obliged to defend\nthe weak, the bad and the vulgar, so long as they insist upon the\ninspiration of the Bible. Now, I pursued the same course with the\nBible that Mr. Beecher has pursued with me. Why did he want to\npick out my bad things? Is it possible that he is a kind of vulture\nthat sees only the carrion of another? After all, has he not\npursued the same method with me that he blames me for pursuing in\nregard to the Bible? Of course he must pursue that method. He\ncould not object to me and then point out passages that were not\nobjectionable. If he found fault he had to find faults in order\nto sustain his ground. That is exactly what I have done with\nScriptures--nothing more and nothing less. The reason I have thrown\naway the Bible is that in many places it is harsh, cruel, unjust,\ncoarse, vulgar, atrocious, infamous. At the same time, I admit\nthat it contains many passages of an excellent and splendid character\n--many good things, wise sayings, and many excellent and just laws.\n\nBut I would like to ask this: Suppose there were no passages in\nthe Bible except those upholding slavery, polygamy and wars of\nextermination; would anybody then claim that it was the word of\nGod? I would like to ask if there is a Christian in the world who\nwould not be overjoyed to find that every one of these passages\nwas an interpolation? I would also like to ask Mr. Beecher if he\nwould not be greatly gratified to find that after God had written\nthe Bible the Devil had got hold of it, and interpolated all these\npassages about slavery, polygamy, the slaughter of women and babes\nand the doctrine of eternal punishment? Suppose, as a matter of\nfact, the Devil did get hold of it; what part of the Bible would\nMr. Beecher pick out as having been written by the Devil? And if\nhe picks out these passages could not the Devil answer him by\nsaying, \"You, Mr. Beecher, are like a vulture, a kind of buzzard,\nflying through the tainted air of inspiration, and pouncing down\nupon the carrion. Why do you not fly like a dove, and why do you\nnot have the innocent ignorance of the dove, so that you could\nlight upon a carcass and imagine that you were surrounded by the\nperfume of violets?\" The fact is that good things in a book do\nnot prove that it is inspired, but the presence of bad things does\nprove that it is not.\n\n_Question_. What was the real difficulty between you and Moses,\nColonel, a man who has been dead for thousands of years?\n\n_Answer_. We never had any difficulty. I have always taken pains\nto say that Moses had nothing to do with the Pentateuch. Those\nbooks, in my judgment, were written several centuries after Moses\nhad become dust in his unknown sepulchre. No doubt Moses was quite\na man in his day, if he ever existed at all. Some people say that\nMoses is exactly the same as \"law-giver;\" that is to say, as\nLegislature, that is to say as Congress. Imagine somebody in the\nfuture as regarding the Congress of the United States as one person!\nAnd then imagine that somebody endeavoring to prove that Congress\nwas always consistent. But, whether Moses lived or not makes but\nlittle difference to me. I presume he filled the place and did\nthe work that he was compelled to do, and although according to\nthe account God had much to say to him with regard to the making\nof altars, tongs, snuffers and candlesticks, there is much left\nfor nature still to tell. Thinking of Moses as a man, admitting\nthat he was above his fellows, that he was in his day and generation\na leader, and, in a certain narrow sense, a patriot, that he was\nthe founder of the Jewish people; that he found them barbarians\nand endeavored to control them by thunder and lightning, and found\nit necessary to pretend that he was in partnership with the power\ngoverning the universe; that he took advantage of their ignorance\nand fear, just as politicians do now, and as theologians always\nwill, still, I see no evidence that the man Moses was any nearer\nto God than his descendants, who are still warring against the\nPhilistines in every civilized part of the globe. Moses was a\nbeliever in slavery, in polygamy, in wars of extermination, in\nreligious persecution and intolerance and in almost everything that\nis now regarded with loathing, contempt and scorn. The Jehovah of\nwhom he speaks violated, or commands the violation of at least nine\nof the Ten Commandments he gave. There is one thing, however, that\ncan be said of Moses that cannot be said of any person who now\ninsists that he was inspired, and that is, he was in advance of his\ntime.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the Buckner Bill for the colonization\nof the negroes in Mexico?\n\n_Answer_. Where does Mr. Buckner propose to colonize the white\npeople, and what right has he to propose the colonization of six\nmillions of people? Should we not have other bills to colonize\nthe Germans, the Swedes, the Irish, and then, may be, another bill\nto drive the Chinese into the sea? Where do we get the right to\nsay that the negroes must emigrate?\n\nAll such schemes will, in my judgment, prove utterly futile.\nPerhaps the history of the world does not give an instance of the\nemigration of six millions of people. Notwithstanding the treatment\nthat Ireland has received from England, which may be designated as\na crime of three hundred years, the Irish still love Ireland. All\nthe despotism in the world will never crush out of the Irish heart\nthe love of home--the adoration of the old sod. The negroes of\nthe South have certainly suffered enough to drive them into other\ncountries; but after all, they prefer to stay where they were born.\nThey prefer to live where their ancestors were slaves, where fathers\nand mothers were sold and whipped; and I don't believe it will be\npossible to induce a majority of them to leave that land. Of\ncourse, thousands may leave, and in process of time millions may\ngo, but I don't believe emigration will ever equal their natural\nincrease. As the whites of the South become civilized the reason\nfor going will be less and less.\n\nI see no reason why the white and black men cannot live together\nin the same land, under the same flag. The beauty of liberty is\nyou cannot have it unless you give it away, and the more you give\naway the more you have. I know that my liberty is secure only\nbecause others are free.\n\nI am perfectly willing to live in a country with such men as\nFrederick Douglass and Senator Bruce. I have always preferred a\ngood, clever black man to a mean white man, and I am of the opinion\nthat I shall continue in that preference. Now, if we could only\nhave a colonization bill that would get rid of all the rowdies,\nall the rascals and hypocrites, I would like to see it carried out,\nthought some people might insist that it would amount to a repudiation\nof the national debt and that hardly enough would be left to pay\nthe interest. No, talk as we will, the colored people helped to\nsave this Nation. They have been at all times and in all places\nthe friends of our flag; a flag that never really protected them.\nAnd for my part, I am willing that they should stand forever beneath\nthat flag, the equal in rights of all other people. Politically,\nif any black men are to be sent away, I want it understood that\neach one is to be accompanied by a Democrat, so that the balance\nof power, especially in New York, will not be disturbed.\n\n_Question_. I notice that leading Republican newspapers are advising\nGeneral Garfield to cut loose from the machine in politics; what\ndo you regard as the machine?\n\n_Answer_. All defeated candidates regard the persons who defeated\nthem as constituting a machine, and always imagine that there is\nsome wicked conspiracy at the bottom of the machine. Some of the\nrecent reformers regard the people who take part in the early stages\nof a political campaign--who attend caucuses and primaries, who\nspeak of politics to their neighbors, as members and parts of the\nmachine, and regard only those as good and reliable American citizens\nwho take no part whatever, simply reserving the right to grumble\nafter the work has been done by others. Not much can be accomplished\nin politics without an organization, and the moment an organization\nis formed, and, you might say, just a little before, leading spirits\nwill be developed. Certain men will take the lead, and the weaker\nmen will in a short time, unless they get all the loaves and fishes,\ndenounce the whole thing as a machine, and, to show how thoroughly\nand honestly they detest the machine in politics, will endeavor to\norganize a little machine themselves. General Garfield has been\nin politics for many years. He knows the principal men in both\nparties. He knows the men who have not only done something, but\nwho are capable of doing something, and such men will not, in my\nopinion, be neglected. I do not believe that General Garfield will\ndo any act calculated to divide the Republican party. No thoroughly\ngreat man carries personal prejudice into the administration of\npublic affairs. Of course, thousands of people will be prophesying\nthat this man is to be snubbed and another to be paid; but, in my\njudgment, after the 4th of March most people will say that General\nGarfield has used his power wisely and that he has neither sought\nnor shunned men simply because he wished to pay debts--either of\nlove or hatred.\n\n--Washington correspondent, _Brooklyn Eagle_, January 31, 1881.\n\n\nHADES, DELAWARE AND FREETHOUGHT.\n\n_Question_. Now that a lull has come in politics, I thought I\nwould come and see what is going on in the religious world?\n\n_Answer_. Well, from what little I learn, there has not been much\ngoing on during the last year. There are five hundred and twenty-\nsix Congregational Churches in Massachusetts, and two hundred of\nthese churches have not received a new member for an entire year,\nand the others have scarcely held their own. In Illinois there\nare four hundred and eighty-three Presbyterian Churches, and they\nhave now fewer members than they had in 1879, and of the four\nhundred and eighty-three, one hundred and eighty-three have not\nreceived a single new member for twelve months. A report has been\nmade, under the auspices of the Pan-Presbyterian Council, to the\neffect that there are in the whole world about three millions of\nPresbyterians. This is about one-fifth of one per cent. of the\ninhabitants of the world. The probability is that of the three\nmillion nominal Presbyterians, not more than two or three hundred\nthousand actually believe the doctrine, and of the two or three\nhundred thousand, not more than five or six hundred have any true\nconception of what the doctrine is. As the Presbyterian Church\nhas only been able to induce one-fifth of one per cent. of the\npeople to even call themselves Presbyterians, about how long will\nit take, at this rate, to convert mankind? The fact is, there\nseems to be a general lull along the entire line, and just at\npresent very little is being done by the orthodox people to keep\ntheir fellow-citizens out of hell.\n\n_Question_. Do you really think that the orthodox people now\nbelieve in the old doctrine of eternal punishment, and that they\nreally think there is a kind of hell that our ancestors so carefully\ndescribed?\n\n_Answer_. I am afraid that the old idea is dying out, and that\nmany Christians are slowly giving up the consolations naturally\nspringing from the old belief. Another terrible blow to the old\ninfamy is the fact that in the revised New Testament the word Hades\nhas been substituted. As nobody knows exactly what Hades means,\nit will not be quite so easy to frighten people at revivals by\nthreatening them with something that they don't clearly understand.\nAfter this, when the impassioned orator cries out that all the\nunconverted will be sent to Hades, the poor sinners, instead of\ngetting frightened, will begin to ask each other what and where\nthat is. It will take many years of preaching to clothe that word\nin all the terrors and horrors, pains, and penalties and pangs of\nhell. Hades is a compromise. It is a concession to the philosophy\nof our day. It is a graceful acknowledgment to the growing spirit\nof investigation, that hell, after all, is a barbaric mistake.\nHades is the death of revivals. It cannot be used in song. It\nwon't rhyme with anything with the same force that hell does. It\nis altogether more shadowy than hot. It is not associated with\nbrimstone and flame. It sounds somewhat indistinct, somewhat\nlonesome, a little desolate, but not altogether uncomfortable.\nFor revival purposes, Hades is simply useless, and few conversions\nwill be made in the old way under the revised Testament.\n\n_Question_. Do you really think that the church is losing ground?\n\n_Answer_. I am not, as you probably know, connected with any\northodox organization, and consequently have to rely upon them for\nmy information. If they can be believed, the church is certainly\nin an extremely bad condition. I find that the Rev. Dr. Cuyler,\nonly a few days ago, speaking of the religious condition of Brooklyn\n--and Brooklyn, you know, has been called the City of Churches--\nstates that the great mass of that Christian city was out of Christ,\nand that more professing Christians went to the theatre than to\nthe prayer meeting. This, certainly, from their standpoint, is a\nmost terrible declaration. Brooklyn, you know, is one of the great\nreligious centres of the world--a city in which nearly all the\npeople are engaged either in delivering or in hearing sermons; a\ncity filled with the editors of religious periodicals; a city of\nprayer and praise; and yet, while prayer meetings are free, the\ntheatres, with the free list entirely suspended, catch more Christians\nthan the churches; and this happens while all the pulpits thunder\nagainst the stage, and the stage remains silent as to the pulpit.\nAt the same meeting in which the Rev. Dr. Cuyler made his astounding\nstatements the Rev. Mr. Pentecost was the bearer of the happy news\nthat four out of five persons living in the city of Brooklyn were\ngoing down to hell with no God and with no hope. If he had read\nthe revised Testament he would have said \"Hades,\" and the effect\nof the statement would have been entirely lost. If four-fifths of\nthe people of that great city are destined to eternal pain, certainly\nwe cannot depend upon churches for the salvation of the world. At\nthe meeting of the Brooklyn pastors they were in doubt as to whether\nthey should depend upon further meetings, or upon a day of fasting\nand prayer for the purpose of converting the city.\n\nIn my judgment, it would be much better to devise ways and means\nto keep a good many people from fasting in Brooklyn. If they had\nmore meat, they could get along with less meeting. If fasting\nwould save a city, there are always plenty of hungry folks even in\nthat Christian town. The real trouble with the church of to-day\nis, that it is behind the intelligence of the people. Its doctrines\nno longer satisfy the brains of the nineteenth century; and if the\nchurch proposes to hold its power, it must lose its superstitions.\nThe day of revivals is gone. Only the ignorant and unthinking can\nhereafter be impressed by hearing the orthodox creed. Fear has in\nit no reformatory power, and the more intelligent the world grows\nthe more despicable and contemptible the doctrine of eternal misery\nwill become. The tendency of the age is toward intellectual liberty,\ntoward personal investigation. Authority is no longer taken for\ntruth. People are beginning to find that all the great and good\nare not dead--that some good people are alive, and that the\ndemonstrations of to-day are fully equal to the mistaken theories\nof the past.\n\n_Question_. How are you getting along with Delaware?\n\n_Answer_. First rate. You know I have been wondering where Comegys\ncame from, and at last I have made the discovery. I was told the\nother day by a gentleman from Delaware that many years ago Colonel\nHazelitt died; that Colonel Hazelitt was an old Revolutionary\nofficer, and that when they were digging his grave they dug up\nComegys. Back of that no one knows anything of his history. The\nonly thing they know about him certainly, is, that he has never\nchanged one of his views since he was found, and that he never\nwill. I am inclined to think, however, that he lives in a community\ncongenial to him. For instance, I saw in a paper the other day\nthat within a radius of thirty miles around Georgetown, Delaware,\nthere are about two hundred orphan and friendless children. These\nchildren, it seems, were indentured to Delaware farmers by the\nmanagers of orphan asylums and other public institutions in and\nabout Philadelphia. It is stated in the paper, that:\n\n\"Many of these farmers are rough task-masters, and if a boy fails\nto perform the work of an adult, he is almost certain to be cruelly\ntreated, half starved, and in the coldest weather wretchedly clad.\nIf he does the work, his life is not likely to be much happier,\nfor as a rule he will receive more kicks than candy. The result\nin either case is almost certain to be wrecked constitutions,\ndwarfed bodies, rounded shoulders, and limbs crippled or rendered\nuseless by frost or rheumatism. The principal diet of these boys\nis corn pone. A few days ago, Constable W. H. Johnston went to\nthe house of Reuben Taylor, and on entering the sitting room his\nattention was attracted by the moans of its only occupant, a little\ncolored boy, who was lying on the hearth in front of the fireplace.\nThe boy's head was covered with ashes from the fire, and he did\nnot pay the slightest attention to the visitor, until Johnston\nasked what made him cry. Then the little fellow sat up and drawing\non old rag off his foot said, 'Look there.' The sight that met\nJohnston's eye was horrible beyond description. The poor boy's\nfeet were so horribly frozen that the flesh had dropped off the\ntoes until the bones protruded. The flesh on the sides, bottoms,\nand tops of his feet was swollen until the skin cracked in many\nplaces, and the inflamed flesh was sloughing off in great flakes.\nThe frost-bitten flesh extended to his knees, the joints of which\nwere terribly inflamed. The right one had already begun suppurating.\nThis poor little black boy, covered with nothing but a cotton shirt,\ndrilling pants, a pair of nearly worn out brogans and a battered\nold hat, on the morning of December 30th, the coldest day of the\nseason, when the mercury was seventeen degrees below zero, in the\nface of a driving snow storm, was sent half a mile from home to\nprotect his master's unshucked corn from the depredations of\nmarauding cows and crows. He remained standing around in the snow\nuntil four o'clock, then he drove the cows home, received a piece\nof cold corn pone, and was sent out in the snow again to chop stove\nwood till dark. Having no bed, he slept that night in front of\nthe fireplace, with his frozen feet buried in the ashes. Dr. C.\nH. Richards found it necessary to cut off the boy's feet as far\nback as the ankle and the instep.\"\n\nThis was but one case in several. Personally, I have no doubt that\nMr. Reuben Taylor entirely agrees with Chief Justice Comegys on\nthe great question of blasphemy, and probably nothing would so\ngratify Mr. Reuben Taylor as to see some man in a Delaware jail\nfor the crime of having expressed an honest thought. No wonder\nthat in the State of Delaware the Christ of intellectual liberty\nhas been crucified between the pillory and the whipping-post. Of\ncourse I know that there are thousands of most excellent people in\nthat State--people who believe in intellectual liberty, and who\nonly need a little help--and I am doing what I can in that direction\n--to repeal the laws that now disgrace the statute book of that\nlittle commonwealth. I have seen many people from that State lately\nwho really wish that Colonel Hazelitt had never died.\n\n_Question_. What has the press generally said with regard to the\naction of Judge Comegys? Do they, so far as you know, justify his\ncharge?\n\n_Answer_. A great many papers having articles upon the subject\nhave been sent to me. A few of the religious papers seem to think\nthat the Judge did the best he knew, and there is one secular paper\ncalled the _Evening News_, published at Chester, Pa., that thinks\n\"that the rebuke from so high a source of authority will have a\nmost excellent effect, and will check religious blasphemers from\nparading their immoral creeds before the people.\" The editor of\nthis paper should at once emigrate to the State of Delaware, where\nhe properly belongs. He is either a native of Delaware, or most\nof his subscribers are citizens of that country; or, it may be that\nhe is a lineal descendant of some Hessian, who deserted during the\nRevolutionary war. Most of the newspapers in the United States\nare advocates of mental freedom. Probably nothing on earth has\nbeen so potent for good as an untrammeled, fearless press. Among\nthe papers of importance there is not a solitary exception. No\nleading journal in the United States can be found upon the side of\nintellectual slavery. Of course, a few rural sheets edited by\ngentlemen, as Mr. Greeley would say, \"whom God in his inscrutable\nwisdom had allowed to exist,\" may be found upon the other side,\nand may be small enough, weak enough and mean enough to pander to\nthe lowest and basest prejudices of their most ignorant subscribers.\nThese editors disgrace their profession and exert about the same\ninfluence upon the heads as upon the pockets of their subscribers\n--that is to say, they get little and give less.\n\n_Question_. Do you not think after all, the people who are in\nfavor of having you arrested for blasphemy, are acting in accordance\nwith the real spirit of the Old and New Testaments?\n\n_Answer_. Of course, they act in exact accordance with many of\nthe commands in the Old Testament, and in accordance with several\npassages in the New. At the same time, it may be said that they\nviolate passages in both. If the Old Testament is true, and if it\nis the inspired word of God, of course, an Infidel ought not be\nallowed to live; and if the New Testament is true, an unbeliever\nshould not be permitted to speak. There are many passages, though,\nin the New Testament, that should protect even an Infidel. Among\nthem is this: \"Do unto others as ye would that others should do\nunto you.\" But that is a passage that has probably had as little\neffect upon the church as any other in the Bible. So far as I am\nconcerned, I am willing to adopt that passage, and I am willing to\nextend to every other human being every right that I claim for\nmyself. If the churches would act upon this principle, if they\nwould say--every soul, every mind, may think and investigate for\nitself; and around all, and over all, shall be thrown the sacred\nshield of liberty, I should be on their side.\n\n_Question_. How do you stand with the clergymen, and what is their\nopinion of you and of your views?\n\n_Answer_. Most of them envy me; envy my independence; envy my\nsuccess; think that I ought to starve; that the people should not\nhear me; say that I do what I do for money, for popularity; that I\nam actuated by hatred of all that is good and tender and holy in\nhuman nature; think that I wish to tear down the churches, destroy\nall morality and goodness, and usher in the reign of crime and\nchaos. They know that shepherds are unnecessary in the absence of\nwolves, and it is to their interest to convince their sheep that\nthey, the sheep, need protection. This they are willing to give\nthem for half the wool. No doubt, most of these minsters are\nhonest, and are doing what they consider their duty. Be this as\nit may, they feel the power slipping from their hands. They know\nthat the idea is slowly growing that they are not absolutely\nnecessary for the protection of society. They know that the\nintellectual world cares little for what they say, and that the\ngreat tide of human progress flows on careless of their help or\nhindrance. So long as they insist upon the inspiration of the\nBible, they are compelled to take the ground that slavery was once\na divine institution; they are forced to defend cruelties that\nwould shock the heart of a savage, and besides, they are bound to\nteach the eternal horror of everlasting punishment.\n\nThey poison the minds of children; they deform the brain and pollute\nthe imagination by teaching the frightful and infamous dogma of\nendless misery. Even the laws of Delaware shock the enlightened\npublic of to-day. In that State they simply fine and imprison a\nman for expressing his honest thoughts; and yet, if the churches\nare right, God will damn a man forever for the same offence. The\nbrain and heart of our time cannot be satisfied with the ancient\ncreeds. The Bible must be revised again. Most of the creeds must\nbe blotted out. Humanity must take the place of theology.\nIntellectual liberty must stand in every pulpit. There must be\nfreedom in all the pews, and every human soul must have the right\nto express its honest thought.\n\n--Washington correspondent, _Brooklyn Eagle_, March 19, 1881.\n\n\nA REPLY TO THE REV. MR. LANSING.*\n\n[* Rev. Isaac J. Lansing of Meriden, Conn., recently denounced Col.\nRobert G. Ingersoll from the pulpit of the Meriden Methodist Church,\nand had the Opera House closed against him. This led a _Union_ reporter\nto show Colonel Ingersoll what Mr. Lansing had said and to interrogate\nhim with the following result.]\n\n_Question_. Did you favor the sending of obscene matter through\nthe mails as alleged by the Rev. Mr. Lansing?\n\n_Answer_. Of course not, and no honest man ever thought that I\ndid. This charge is too malicious and silly to be answered. Mr.\nLansing knows better. He has made this charge many times and he\nwill make it again.\n\n_Question_. Is it a fact that there are thousands of clergymen in\nthe country whom you would fear to meet in fair debate?\n\n_Answer_. No; the fact is I would like to meet them all in one.\nThe pulpit is not burdened with genius. There a few great men\nengaged in preaching, but they are not orthodox. I cannot conceive\nthat a Freethinker has anything to fear from the pulpit, except\nmisrepresentation. Of course, there are thousands of ministers\ntoo small to discuss with--ministers who stand for nothing in the\nchurch--and with such clergymen I cannot afford to discuss anything.\nIf the Presbyterians, or the Congregationalists, or the Methodists\nwould select some man, and endorse him as their champion, I would\nlike to meet him in debate. Such a man I will pay to discuss with\nme. I will give him most excellent wages, and pay all the expenses\nat the discussion besides. There is but one safe course for the\nministers--they must assert. They must declare. They must swear\nto it and stick to it, but they must not try to reason.\n\n_Question_. You have never seen Rev. Mr. Lansing. To the people\nof Meriden and thereabouts he is well-known. Judging from what\nhas been told you of his utterances and actions, what kind of a\nman would you take him to be?\n\n_Answer_. I would take him to be a Christian. He talks like one,\nand he acts like one. If Christianity is right, Lansing is right.\nIf salvation depends upon belief, and if unbelievers are to be\neternally damned, then an Infidel has no right to speak. He should\nnot be allowed to murder the souls of his fellow-men. Lansing does\nthe best he knows how. He thinks that God hates an unbeliever,\nand he tries to act like God. Lansing knows that he must have the\nright to slander a man whom God is to eternally damn.\n\n_Question_. Mr. Lansing speaks of you as a wolf coming with fangs\nsharpened by three hundred dollars a night to tear the lambs of\nhis flock. What do you say to that?\n\n_Answer_. All I have to say is, that I often get three times that\namount, and sometimes much more. I guess his lambs can take care\nof themselves. I am not very fond of mutton anyway. Such talk\nMr. Lansing ought to be ashamed of. The idea that he is a shepherd\n--that he is on guard--is simply preposterous. He has few sheep\nin his congregation that know as little on the wolf question as\nhe does. He ought to know that his sheep support him--his sheep\nprotect him; and without the sheep poor Lansing would be devoured\nby the wolves himself.\n\n_Question_. Shall you sue the Opera House management for breach\nof contract?\n\n_Answer_. I guess not; but I may pay Lansing something for\nadvertising my lecture. I suppose Mr. Wilcox (who controls the\nOpera House) did what he thought was right. I hear he is a good\nman. He probably got a little frightened and began to think about\nthe day of judgment. He could not help it, and I cannot help\nlaughing at him.\n\n_Question_. Those in Meriden who most strongly oppose you are\nradical Republicans. Is it not a fact that you possess the confidence\nand friendship of some of the most respected leaders of that party?\n\n_Answer_. I think that all the respectable ones are friends of\nmine. I am a Republican because I believe in the liberty of the\nbody, and I am an Infidel because I believe in the liberty of the\nmind. There is no need of freeing cages. Let us free the birds.\nIf Mr. Lansing knew me, he would be a great friend. He would\nprobably annoy me by the frequency and length of his visits.\n\n_Question_. During the recent presidential campaign did any\nclergymen denounce you for your teachings, that you are aware of?\n\n_Answer_. Some did, but they would not if they had been running\nfor office on the Republican ticket.\n\n_Question_. What is most needed in our public men?\n\n_Answer_. Hearts and brains.\n\n_Question_. Would people be any more moral solely because of a\ndisbelief in orthodox teaching and in the Bible as an inspired\nbook, in your opinion?\n\n_Answer_. Yes; if a man really believes that God once upheld\nslavery; that he commanded soldiers to kill women and babes; that\nhe believed in polygamy; that he persecuted for opinion's sake;\nthat he will punish forever, and that he hates an unbeliever, the\neffect in my judgment will be bad. It always has been bad. This\nbelief built the dungeons of the Inquisition. This belief made\nthe Puritan murder the Quaker, and this belief has raised the devil\nwith Mr. Lansing.\n\n_Question_. Do you believe there will ever be a millennium, and\nif so how will it come about?\n\n_Answer_. It will probably start in Meriden, as I have been informed\nthat Lansing is going to leave.\n\n_Question_. Is there anything else bearing upon the question at\nissue or that would make good reading, that I have forgotten, that\nyou would like to say?\n\n_Answer_. Yes. Good-bye.\n\n--_The Sunday Union_, New Haven, Conn., April 10, 1881.\n\n\nBEACONSFIELD, LENT AND REVIVALS.\n\n_Question_. What have you to say about the attack of Dr. Buckley\non you, and your lecture?\n\n_Answer_. I never heard of Dr. Buckley until after I had lectured\nin Brooklyn. He seems to think that it was extremely ill bred in\nme to deliver a lecture on the \"Liberty of Man, Woman and Child,\"\nduring Lent. Lent is just as good as any other part of the year,\nand no part can be too good to do good. It was not a part of my\nobject to hurt the feelings of the Episcopalians and Catholics.\nIf they think that there is some subtle relation between hunger\nand heaven, or that faith depends upon, or is strengthened by\nfamine, or that veal, during Lent, is the enemy of virtue, or that\nbeef breeds blasphemy, while fish feeds faith--of course, all this\nis nothing to me. They have a right to say that vice depends upon\nvictuals, sanctity on soup, religion on rice and chastity on cheese,\nbut they have no right to say that a lecture on liberty is an insult\nto them because they are hungry. I suppose that Lent was instituted\nin memory of the Savior's fast. At one time it was supposed that\nonly a divine being could live forty days without food. This\nsupposition has been overthrown.\n\nIt has been demonstrated by Dr. Tanner to be utterly without\nfoundation. What possible good did it do the world for Christ to\ngo without food for forty days? Why should we follow such an\nexample? As a rule, hungry people are cross, contrary, obstinate,\npeevish and unpleasant. A good dinner puts a man at peace with\nall the world--makes him generous, good natured and happy. He\nfeels like kissing his wife and children. The future looks bright.\nHe wants to help the needy. The good in him predominates, and he\nwonders that any man was ever stingy or cruel. Your good cook is\na civilizer, and without good food, well prepared, intellectual\nprogress is simply impossible. Most of the orthodox creeds were\nborn of bad cooking. Bad food produced dyspepsia, and dyspepsia\nproduced Calvinism, and Calvinism is the cancer of Christianity.\nOatmeal is responsible for the worst features of Scotch Presbyterianism.\nHalf cooked beans account for the religion of the Puritans. Fried\nbacon and saleratus biscuit underlie the doctrine of State Rights.\nLent is a mistake, fasting is a blunder, and bad cooking is a crime.\n\n_Question_. It is stated that you went to Brooklyn while Beecher\nand Talmage were holding revivals, and that you did so for the\npurpose of breaking them up. How is this?\n\n_Answer_. I had not the slightest idea of interfering with the\nrevivals. They amounted to nothing. They were not alive enough\nto be killed. Surely one lecture could not destroy two revivals.\nStill, I think that if all the persons engaged in the revivals had\nspent the same length of time in cleaning the streets, the good\nresult would have been more apparent. The truth is, that the old\nway of converting people will have to be abandoned. The Americans\nare getting hard to scare, and a revival without the \"scare\" is\nscarcely worth holding. Such maniacs as Hammond and the \"Boy\nPreacher\" fill asylums and terrify children. After saying what he\nhas about hell, Mr. Beecher ought to know that he is not the man\nto conduct a revival. A revival sermon with hell left out--with\nthe brimstone gone--with the worm that never dies, dead, and the\nDevil absent--is the broadest farce. Mr. Talmage believes in the\nancient way. With him hell is a burning reality. He can hear the\nshrieks and groans. He is of that order of mind that rejoices in\nthese things. If he could only convince others, he would be a\ngreat revivalist. He cannot terrify, he astonishes. He is the\nclown of the horrible--one of Jehovah's jesters. I am not responsible\nfor the revival failure in Brooklyn. I wish I were. I would have\nthe happiness of knowing that I had been instrumental in preserving\nthe sanity of my fellow-men.\n\n_Question_. How do you account for these attacks?\n\n_Answer_. It was not so much what I said that excited the wrath\nof the reverend gentlemen as the fact that I had a great house.\nThey contrasted their failure with my success. The fact is, the\npeople are getting tired of the old ideas. They are beginning to\nthink for themselves. Eternal punishment seems to them like eternal\nrevenge. They see that Christ could not atone for the sins of\nothers; that belief ought not to be rewarded and honest doubt\npunished forever; that good deeds are better than bad creeds, and\nthat liberty is the rightful heritage of every soul.\n\n_Question_. Were you an admirer of Lord Beaconsfield?\n\n_Answer_. In some respects. He was on our side during the war,\nand gave it as his opinion that the Union would be preserved. Mr.\nGladstone congratulated Jefferson Davis on having founded a new\nnation. I shall never forget Beaconsfield for his kindness, nor\nGladstone for his malice. Beaconsfield was an intellectual gymnast,\na political athlete, one of the most adroit men in the world. He\nhad the persistence of his race. In spite of the prejudices of\neighteen hundred years, he rose to the highest position that can\nbe occupied by a citizen. During his administration England again\nbecame a Continental power and played her game of European chess.\nI have never regarded Beaconsfield as a man controlled by principle,\nor by his heart. He was strictly a politician. He always acted\nas though he thought the clubs were looking at him. He knew all\nthe arts belonging to his trade. He would have succeeded anywhere,\nif by \"succeeding\" is meant the attainment of position and power.\nBut after all, such men are splendid failures. They give themselves\nand others a great deal of trouble--they wear the tinsel crown of\ntemporary success and then fade from public view. They astonish\nthe pit, they gain the applause of the galleries, but when the\ncurtain falls there is nothing left to benefit mankind. Beaconsfield\nheld convictions somewhat in contempt. He had the imagination of\nthe East united with the ambition of an Englishman. With him, to\nsucceed was to have done right.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of him as an author?\n\n_Answer_. Most of his characters are like himself--puppets moved\nby the string of self-interest. The men are adroit, the women\nmostly heartless. They catch each other with false bait. They\nhave great worldly wisdom. Their virtue and vice are mechanical.\nThey have hearts like clocks--filled with wheels and springs. The\nauthor winds them up. In his novels Disraeli allows us to enter\nthe greenroom of his heart. We see the ropes, the pulleys and the\nold masks. In all things, in politics and in literature, he was\ncold, cunning, accurate, able and successful. His books will, in\na little while, follow their author to their grave. After all,\nthe good will live longest.\n\n--Washington correspondent, _Brooklyn Eagle_, April 24, 1881.\n\n\nANSWERING THE NEW YORK MINISTERS.*\n\n[* Ever since Colonel Ingersoll began the delivery of his lecture\ncalled _The Great Infidels_, the ministers of the country have\nmade him the subject of special attack. One week ago last Sunday\nthe majority of the leading ministers in New York made replies to\nIngersoll's latest lecture. What he has to say to these replies\nwill be found in a report of an interview with Colonel Ingersoll.\n\nNo man is harder to pin down for a long talk than the Colonel. He is\nso beset with visitors and eager office seekers anxious for help,\nthat he can hardly find five minutes unoccupied during an entire day.\nThrough the shelter of a private room and the guardianship of a stout\ncolored servant, the Colonel was able to escape the crowd of seekers\nafter his personal charity long enough to give some time to answer\nsome of the ministerial arguments advanced against him in New York.]\n\n_Question_. Have you seen the attacks made upon you by certain\nministers of New York, published in the _Herald_ last Sunday?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, I read, or heard read, what was in Monday's _Herald_.\nI do not know that you could hardly call them attacks. They are\nsubstantially a repetition of what the pulpit has been saying for\na great many hundred years, and what the pulpit will say just so\nlong as men are paid for suppressing truth and for defending\nsuperstition. One of these gentlemen tells the lambs of his flock\nthat three thousand men and a few women--probably with quite an\nemphasis on the word \"Few\"--gave one dollar each to hear their\nMaker cursed and their Savior ridiculed. Probably nothing is so\nhard for the average preacher to bear as the fact that people are\nnot only willing to hear the other side, but absolutely anxious to\npay for it. The dollar that these people paid hurt their feelings\nvastly more than what was said after they were in. Of course, it\nis a frightful commentary on the average intellect of the pulpit\nthat a minister cannot get so large an audience when he preaches\nfor nothing, as an Infidel can draw at a dollar a head. If I\ndepended upon a contribution box, or upon passing a saucer that\nwould come back to the stage enriched with a few five cent pieces,\neight or ten dimes, and a lonesome quarter, these gentlemen would,\nin all probability, imagine Infidelity was not to be feared.\n\nThe churches were all open on that Sunday, and all could go who\ndesired. Yet they were not full, and the pews were nearly as empty\nof people as the pulpit of ideas. The truth is, the story is\ngrowing old, the ideas somewhat moss-covered, and everything has\na wrinkled and withered appearance. This gentleman says that these\npeople went to hear their Maker cursed and their Savior ridiculed.\nIs it possible that in a city where so many steeples pierce the\nair, and hundreds of sermons are preached every Sunday, there are\nthree thousand men, and a few women, so anxious to hear \"their\nMaker cursed and their Savior ridiculed\" that they are willing to\npay a dollar each? The gentleman knew that nobody cursed anybody's\nMaker. He knew that the statement was utterly false and without\nthe slightest foundation. He also knew that nobody had ridiculed\nthe Savior of anybody, but, on the contrary, that I had paid a\ngreater tribute to the character of Jesus Christ than any minister\nin New York has the capacity to do. Certainly it is not cursing\nthe Maker of anybody to say that the God described in the Old\nTestament is not the real God. Certainly it is not cursing God to\ndeclare that the real God never sanctioned slavery or polygamy, or\ncommanded wars of extermination, or told a husband to separate from\nhis wife if she differed with him in religion. The people who say\nthese things of God--if there is any God at all--do what little\nthere is in their power, unwittingly of course, to destroy his\nreputation. But I have done something to rescue the reputation of\nthe Deity from the slanders of the pulpit. If there is any God,\nI expect to find myself credited on the heavenly books for my\ndefence of him. I did say that our civilization is due not to\npiety, but to Infidelity. I did say that every great reformer had\nbeen denounced as an Infidel in his day and generation. I did say\nthat Christ was an Infidel, and that he was treated in his day very\nmuch as the orthodox preachers treat an honest man now. I did say\nthat he was tried for blasphemy and crucified by bigots. I did\nsay that he hated and despised the church of his time, and that he\ndenounced the most pious people of Jerusalem as thieves and vipers.\nAnd I suggested that should he come again he might have occasion\nto repeat the remarks that he then made. At the same time I admitted\nthat there are thousands and thousands of Christians who are\nexceedingly good people. I never did pretend that the fact that\na man was a Christian even tended to show that he was a bad man.\nNeither have I ever insisted that the fact that a man is an Infidel\neven tends to show what, in other respects, his character is. But\nI always have said, and I always expect to say, that a Christian\nwho does not believe in absolute intellectual liberty is a curse\nto mankind, and that an Infidel who does believe in absolute\nintellectual liberty is a blessing to this world. We cannot expect\nall Infidels to be good, nor all Christians to be bad, and we might\nmake some mistakes even if we selected these people ourselves. It\nis admitted by the Christians that Christ made a great mistake when\nhe selected Judas. This was a mistake of over eight per cent.\n\nChaplain Newman takes pains to compare some great Christians with\nsome great Infidels. He compares Washington with Julian, and\ninsists, I suppose, that Washington was a great Christian. Certainly\nhe is not very familiar with the history of Washington, or he never\nwould claim that he was particularly distinguished in his day for\nwhat is generally known as vital piety. That he went through the\nordinary forms of Christianity nobody disputes. That he listened\nto sermons without paying any particular attention to them, no one\nwill deny. Julian, of course, was somewhat prejudiced against\nChristianity, but that he was one of the greatest men of antiquity\nno one acquainted with the history of Rome can honestly dispute.\nWhen he was made emperor he found at the palace hundreds of gentlemen\nwho acted as barbers, hair-combers, and brushers for the emperor.\nHe dismissed them all, remarking that he was able to wash himself.\nThese dismissed office-holders started the story that he was dirty\nin his habits, and a minister of the nineteenth century was found\nsilly enough to believe the story. Another thing that probably\ngot him into disrepute in that day, he had no private chaplains.\nAs a matter of fact, Julian was forced to pretend that he was a\nChristian in order to save his life. The Christians of that day\nwere of such a loving nature that any man who differed with them\nwas forced to either fall a victim to their ferocity or seek safety\nin subterfuge. The real crime that Julian committed, and the only\none that has burned itself into the very heart and conscience of\nthe Christian world, is, that he transferred the revenues of the\nChristian churches to heathen priests. Whoever stands between a\npriest and his salary will find that he has committed the unpardonable\nsin commonly known as the sin against the Holy Ghost.\n\nThis gentleman also compares Luther with Voltaire. If he will read\nthe life of Luther by Lord Brougham, he will find that in his\nordinary conversation he was exceedingly low and vulgar, and that\nno respectable English publisher could be found who would soil\npaper with the translation. If he will take the pains to read an\nessay by Macaulay, he will find that twenty years after the death\nof Luther there were more Catholics than when he was born. And\nthat twenty years after the death of Voltaire there were millions\nless than when he was born. If he will take just a few moments to\nthink, he will find that the last victory of Protestantism was in\nHolland; that there has never been one since, and will never be\nanother. If he would really like to think, and enjoy for a few\nmoments the luxury of having an idea, let him ponder for a little\nwhile over the instructive fact that languages having their root\nin the Latin have generally been spoken in Catholic countries, and\nthat those languages having their root in the ancient German are\nnow mostly spoken by people of Protestant proclivities. It may\noccur to him, after thinking of this a while, that there is something\ndeeper in the question than he has as yet perceived. Luther's last\nvictory, as I said before, was in Holland; but the victory of\nVoltaire goes on from day to day. Protestantism is not holding\nits own with Catholicism, even in the United States. I saw the\nother day the statistics, I believe, of the city of Chicago, showing\nthat, while the city had increased two or three hundred per cent.,\nProtestantism had lagged behind at the rate of twelve per cent.\nI am willing for one, to have the whole question depend upon a\ncomparison of the worth and work of Voltaire and Luther. It may\nbe, too, that the gentleman forgot to tell us that Luther himself\ngave consent to a person high in office to have two wives, but\nprudently suggested to him that he had better keep it as still as\npossible. Luther was, also, a believer in a personal Devil. He\nthought that deformed children had been begotten by an evil spirit.\nOn one occasion he told a mother that, in his judgment, she had\nbetter drown her child; that he had no doubt that the Devil was\nits father. This same Luther made this observation: \"Universal\ntoleration is universal error, and universal error is universal\nhell.\" From this you will see that he was an exceedingly good man,\nbut mistaken upon many questions. So, too, he laughed at the\nCopernican system, and wanted to know if those fool astronomers\ncould undo the work of God. He probably knew as little about\nscience as the reverend gentleman does about history.\n\n_Question_. Does he compare any other Infidels with Christians?\n\n_Answer_. Oh, yes; he compares Lord Bacon with Diderot. I have\nnever claimed that Diderot was a saint. I have simply insisted\nthat he was a great man; that he was grand enough to say that\n\"incredulity is the beginning of philosophy;\" that he had sense\nenough to know that the God described by the Catholics and Protestants\nof his day was simply an impossible monster; and that he also had\nthe brain to see that the little selfish heaven occupied by a few\nmonks and nuns and idiots they had fleeced, was hardly worth going\nto; in other words, that he was a man of common sense, greatly in\nadvance of his time, and that he did what he could to increase the\nsum of human enjoyment to the end that there might be more happiness\nin this world.\n\nThe gentleman compares him with Lord Bacon, and yet, if he will\nread the trials of that day--I think in the year 1620--he will find\nthat the Christian Lord Bacon, the pious Lord Bacon, was charged\nwith receiving pay for his opinions, and, in some instances, pay\nfrom both sides; that the Christian Lord Bacon, at first upon his\nhonor as a Christian lord, denied the whole business; that afterward\nthe Christian Lord Bacon, upon his honor as a Christian lord,\nadmitted the truth of the whole business, and that, therefore, the\nChristian Lord Bacon was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of\nforty thousand pounds, and rendered infamous and incapable of\nholding any office. Now, understand me, I do not think Bacon took\nbribes because he was a Christian, because there have been many\nChristian judges perfectly honest; but, if the statement of the\nreverend gentlemen of New York is true, his being a Christian did\nnot prevent his taking bribes. And right here allow me to thank\nthe gentleman with all my heart for having spoken of Lord Bacon in\nthis connection. I have always admired the genius of Bacon, and\nhave always thought of his fall with an aching heart, and would\nnot now have spoken of his crime had not his character been flung\nin my face by a gentleman who asks his God to kill me for having\nexpressed my honest thought.\n\nThe same gentleman compares Newton with Spinoza. In the first\nplace, there is no ground of parallel. Newton was a very great\nman and a very justly celebrated mathematician. As a matter of\nfact, he is not celebrated for having discovered the law of\ngravitation. That was known for thousands of years before he was\nborn; and if the reverend gentleman would read a little more he\nwould find that Newton's discovery was not that there is such a\nlaw as gravitation, but that bodies attract each other \"with a\nforce proportional directly to the quantity of matter they contain,\nand inversely to the squares of their distances.\" I do not think\nhe made the discoveries on account of his Christianity. Laplace\nwas certainly in many respects as great a mathematician and\nastronomer, but he was not a Christian.\n\nDescartes was certainly not much inferior to Newton as a mathematician,\nand thousands insist that he was his superior; yet he was not a\nChristian. Euclid, if I remember right, was not a Christian, and\nyet he had quite a turn for mathematics. As a matter of fact,\nChristianity got its idea of algebra from the Mohammedans, and,\nwithout algebra, astronomical knowledge of to-day would have been\nimpossible. Christianity did not even invent figures. We got\nthose from the Arabs. The very word \"algebra\" is Arabic. The\ndecimal system, I believe, however, was due to a German, but whether\nhe was a Christian or not, I do not know.\n\nWe find that the Chinese calculated eclipses long before Christ\nwas born; and, exactness being the rule at that time, there is an\naccount of two astronomers having been beheaded for failing to tell\nthe coming of an eclipse to the minute; yet they were not Christians.\nThere is another fact connected with Newton, and that is that he\nwrote a commentary on the Book of Revelation. The probability is\nthat a sillier commentary was never written. It was so perfectly\nabsurd and laughable that some one--I believe it was Voltaire--said\nthat while Newton had excited the envy of the intellectual world\nby his mathematical accomplishments, it had gotten even with him\nthe moment his commentaries were published. Spinoza was not a\nmathematician, particularly. He was a metaphysician, an honest\nthinker, whose influence is felt, and will be felt so long as these\ngreat questions have the slightest interest for the human brain.\n\nHe also compares Chalmers with Hume. Chalmers gained his notoriety\nfrom preaching what are known as the astronomical sermons, and, I\nsuppose, was quite a preacher in his day.\n\nBut Hume was a thinker, and his works will live for ages after Mr.\nChalmers' sermons will have been forgotten. Mr. Chalmers has never\nbeen prominent enough to have been well known by many people. He\nmay have been an exceedingly good man, and derived, during his\nlife, great consolation from a belief in the damnation of infants.\n\nMr. Newman also compares Wesley with Thomas Paine. When Thomas\nPaine was in favor of human liberty, Wesley was against it. Thomas\nPaine wrote a pamphlet called \"Common Sense,\" urging the colonies\nto separate themselves from Great Britain. Wesley wrote a treatise\non the other side. He was the enemy of human liberty; and if his\nadvice could have been followed we would have been the colonies of\nGreat Britain still. We never would have had a President in need\nof a private chaplain. Mr. Wesley had not a scientific mind. He\npreached a sermon once on the cause and cure of earthquakes, taking\nthe ground that earthquakes were caused by sins, and that the only\nway to stop them was to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. He also\nlaid down some excellent rules for rearing children, that is, from\na Methodist standpoint. His rules amounted to about this:\n\n _First_. Never give them what they want.\n _Second_. Never give them what you intend to give them, at the time\n they want it.\n _Third_. Break their wills at the earliest possible moment.\n\nMr. Wesley made every family an inquisition, every father and mother\ninquisitors, and all the children helpless victims. One of his\nhomes would give an exceedingly vivid idea of hell. At the same\ntime, Mr. Wesley was a believer in witches and wizards, and knew\nall about the Devil. At his request God performed many miracles.\nOn several occasions he cured his horse of lameness. On others,\ndissipated Mr. Wesley's headaches. Now and then he put off rain\non account of a camp meeting, and at other times stopped the wind\nblowing at the special request of Mr. Wesley. I have no doubt that\nMr. Wesley was honest in all this,--just as honest as he was\nmistaken. And I also admit that he was the founder of a church\nthat does extremely well in new countries, and that thousands of\nMethodists have been exceedingly good men. But I deny that he ever\ndid anything for human liberty. While Mr. Wesley was fighting the\nDevil and giving his experience with witches and wizards, Thomas\nPaine helped to found a free nation, helped to enrich the air with\nanother flag. Wesley was right on one thing, though. He was\nopposed to slavery, and, I believe, called it the sum of all\nvillainies. I have always been obliged to him for that. I do not\nthink he said it because he was a Methodist; but Methodism, as he\nunderstood it, did not prevent his saying it, and Methodism as\nothers understood it, did not prevent men from being slaveholders,\ndid not prevent them from selling babes from mothers, and in the\nname of God beating the naked back of toil. I think, on the whole,\nPaine did more for the world than Mr. Wesley. The difference\nbetween an average Methodist and an average Episcopalian is not\nworth quarreling about. But the difference between a man who\nbelieves in despotism and one who believes in liberty is almost\ninfinite. Wesley changed Episcopalians into Methodists; Paine\nturned lickspittles into men. Let it be understood, once for all,\nthat I have never claimed that Paine was perfect. I was very glad\nthat the reverend gentleman admitted that he was a patriot and the\nfoe of tyrants; that he sympathized with the oppressed, and befriended\nthe helpless; that he favored religious toleration, and that he\nweakened the power of the Catholic Church. I am glad that he made\nthese admissions. Whenever it can be truthfully said of a man that\nhe loved his country, hated tyranny, sympathized with the oppressed,\nand befriended the helpless, nothing more is necessary. If God\ncan afford to damn such a man, such a man can afford to be damned.\nWhile Paine was the foe of tyrants, Christians were the tyrants.\nWhen he sympathized with the oppressed, the oppressed were the\nvictims of Christians. When he befriended the helpless, the helpless\nwere the victims of Christians. Paine never founded an inquisition;\nnever tortured a human being; never hoped that anybody's tongue\nwould be paralyzed, and was always opposed to private chaplains.\n\nIt might be well for the reverend gentleman to continue his\ncomparisons, and find eminent Christians to put, for instance,\nalong with Humboldt, the Shakespeare of science; somebody by the\nside of Darwin, as a naturalist; some gentleman in England to stand\nwith Tyndall, or Huxley; some Christian German to stand with Haeckel\nand Helmholtz. May be he knows some Christian statesman that he\nwould compare with Gambetta. I would advise him to continue his\nparallels.\n\n_Question_. What have you to say of the Rev. Dr. Fulton?\n\n_Answer_. The Rev. Dr. Fulton is a great friend of mine. I am\nextremely sorry to find that he still believes in a personal Devil,\nand I greatly regret that he imagines that this Devil has so much\npower that he can take possession of a human being and deprive God\nof their services. It is in sorrow and not in anger, that I find\nthat he still believes in this ancient superstition. I also regret\nthat he imagines that I am leading young men to eternal ruin. It\noccurs to me that if there is an infinite God, he ought not to\nallow anybody to lead young men to eternal ruin. If anything I\nhave said, or am going to say, has a tendency to lead young men to\neternal ruin, I hope that if there is a God with the power to\nprevent me, that he will use it. Dr. Fulton admits that in politics\nI am on the right side. I presume he makes this concession because\nhe is a Republican. I am in favor of universal education, of\nabsolute intellectual liberty. I am in favor, also, of equal rights\nto all. As I have said before we have spent millions and millions\nof dollars and rivers of blood to free the bodies of men; in other\nwords, we have been freeing the cages. My proposition now is to\ngive a little liberty to the birds. I am not willing to stop where\na man can simply reap the fruit of his hand. I wish him, also, to\nenjoy the liberty of his brain. I am not against any truth in the\nNew Testament. I did say that I objected to religion because it\nmade enemies and not friends. The Rev. Dr. says that is one reason\nwhy he likes religion. Dr. Fulton tells me that the Bible is the\ngift of God to man. He also tells me that the Bible is true, and\nthat God is its author. If the Bible is true and God is its author,\nthen God was in favor of slavery four thousand years ago. He was\nalso in favor of polygamy and religious intolerance. In other\nwords, four thousand years ago he occupied the exact position the\nDevil is supposed to occupy now. If the Bible teaches anything it\nteaches man to enslave his brother, that is to say, if his brother\nis a heathen. The God of the Bible always hated heathens. Dr.\nFulton also says that the Bible is the basis of all law. Yet, if\nthe Legislature of New York would re-enact next winter the Mosaic\ncode, the members might consider themselves lucky if they were not\nhung upon their return home. Probably Dr. Fulton thinks that had\nit not been for the Ten Commandments, nobody would ever have thought\nthat stealing was wrong. I have always had an idea that men objected\nto stealing because the industrious did not wish to support the\nidle; and I have a notion that there has always been a law against\nmurder, because a large majority of people have always objected to\nbeing murdered. If he will read his Old Testament with care, he\nwill find that God violated most of his own commandments--all except\nthat \"Thou shalt worship no other God before me,\" and, may be, the\ncommandment against work on the Sabbath day. With these two\nexceptions I am satisfied that God himself violated all the rest.\nHe told his chosen people to rob the Gentiles; that violated the\ncommandment against stealing. He said himself that he had sent\nout lying spirits; that certainly was a violation of another\ncommandment. He ordered soldiers to kill men, women and babes;\nthat was a violation of another. He also told them to divide the\nmaidens among the soldiers; that was a substantial violation of\nanother. One of the commandments was that you should not covet\nyour neighbor's property. In that commandment you will find that\na man's wife is put on an equality with his ox. Yet his chosen\npeople were allowed not only to covet the property of the Gentiles,\nbut to take it. If Dr. Fulton will read a little more, he will\nfind that all the good laws in the Decalogue had been in force in\nEgypt a century before Moses was born. He will find that like laws\nand many better ones were in force in India and China, long before\nMoses knew what a bulrush was. If he will think a little while,\nhe will find that one of the Ten Commandments, the one on the\nsubject of graven images, was bad. The result of that was that\nPalestine never produced a painter, or a sculptor, and that no Jew\nbecame famous in art until long after the destruction of Jerusalem.\nA commandment that robs a people of painting and statuary is not\na good one. The idea of the Bible being the basis of law is almost\ntoo silly to be seriously refuted. I admit that I did say that\nShakespeare was the greatest man who ever lived; and Dr. Fulton\nsays in regard to this statement, \"What foolishness!\" He then\nproceeds to insult his audience by telling them that while many of\nthem have copies of Shakespeare's works in their houses, they have\nnot read twenty pages of them. This fact may account for their\nattending his church and being satisfied with that sermon. I do\nnot believe to-day that Shakespeare is more influential than the\nBible, but what influence Shakespeare has, is for good. No man\ncan read it without having his intellectual wealth increased. When\nyou read it, it is not necessary to throw away your reason. Neither\nwill you be damned if you do not understand it. It is a book that\nappeals to everything in the human brain. In that book can be\nfound the wisdom of all ages. Long after the Bible has passed out\nof existence, the name of Shakespeare will lead the intellectual\nroster of the world. Dr. Fulton says there is not one work in the\nBible that teaches that slavery or polygamy is right. He also\nstates that I know it. If language has meaning--if words have\nsense, or the power to convey thought,--what did God mean when he\ntold the Israelites to buy of the heathen round about, and that\nthe heathen should be their bondmen and bondmaids forever?\n\nWhat did God mean when he said, If a man strike his servant so he\ndies, he should not be punished, because his servant was his money?\nPassages like these can be quoted beyond the space that any paper\nis willing to give. Yet the Rev. Dr. Fulton denies that the Old\nTestament upholds slavery. I would like to ask him if the Old\nTestament is in favor of religious toleration? If God wrote the\nOld Testament and afterward came upon the earth as Jesus Christ,\nand taught a new religion, and the Jews crucified him, was this\nnot in accordance with his own law, and was he not, after all, the\nvictim of himself?\n\n_Question_. What about the other ministers?\n\n_Answer_. Well, I see in the _Herald_ that some ten have said that\nthey would reply to me. I have selected the two, simply because\nthey came first. I think they are about as poor as any; and you\nknow it is natural to attack those who are the easiest answered.\nAll these ministers are now acting as my agents, and are doing me\nall the good they can by saying all the bad things about me they\ncan think of. They imagine that their congregations have not grown,\nand they talk to them as though they were living in the seventeenth\ninstead of the nineteenth century. The truth is, the pews are\nbeyond the pulpit, and the modern sheep are now protecting the\nshepherds.\n\n_Question_. Have you noticed a great change in public sentiment\nin the last three or four years?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, I think there are ten times as many Infidels to-\nday as there were ten years ago. I am amazed at the great change\nthat has taken place in public opinion. The churches are not\ngetting along well. There are hundreds and hundreds who have not\nhad a new member in a year. The young men are not satisfied with\nthe old ideas. They find that the church, after all, is opposed\nto learning; that it is the enemy of progress; that it says to\nevery young man, \"Go slow. Don't allow your knowledge to puff you\nup. Recollect that reason is a dangerous thing. You had better\nbe a little ignorant here for the sake of being an angel hereafter,\nthan quite a smart young man and get damned at last.\" The church\nwarns them against Humboldt and Darwin, and tells them how much\nnobler it is to come from mud than from monkeys; that they were\nmade from mud. Every college professor is afraid to tell what he\nthinks, and every student detects the cowardice. The result is\nthat the young men have lost confidence in the creeds of the day\nand propose to do a little thinking for themselves. They still\nhave a kind of tender pity for the old folks, and pretend to believe\nsome things they do not, rather than hurt grandmother's feelings.\nIn the presence of the preachers they talk about the weather or\nother harmless subjects, for fear of bruising the spirit of their\npastor. Every minister likes to consider himself as a brave shepherd\nleading the lambs through the green pastures and defending them at\nnight from Infidel wolves. All this he does for a certain share\nof the wool. Others regard the church as a kind of social\norganization, as a good way to get into society. They wish to\nattend sociables, drink tea, and contribute for the conversion of\nthe heathen. It is always so pleasant to think that there is\nsomebody worse than you are, whose reformation you can help pay\nfor. I find, too, that the young women are getting tired of the\nold doctrines, and that everywhere, all over this country, the\npower of the pulpit wanes and weakens. I find in my lectures that\nthe applause is just in proportion to the radicalism of the thought\nexpressed. Our war was a great educator, when the whole people of\nthe North rose up grandly in favor of human liberty. For many\nyears the great question of human rights was discussed from every\nstump. Every paper was filled with splendid sentiments. An\napplication of those doctrines--doctrines born in war--will forever\ndo away with the bondage of superstition. When man has been free\nin body for a little time, he will become free in mind, and the\nman who says, \"I have a equal right with other men to work and reap\nthe reward of my labor,\" will say, \"I have, also, an equal right\nto think and reap the reward of my thought.\"\n\nIn old times there was a great difference between a clergyman and\na layman. The clergyman was educated; the peasant was ignorant.\nThe tables have been turned. The thought of the world is with the\nlaymen. They are the intellectual pioneers, the mental leaders,\nand the ministers are following on behind, predicting failure and\ndisaster, sighing for the good old times when their word ended\ndiscussion. There is another good thing, and that is the revision\nof the Bible. Hundreds of passages have been found to be\ninterpolations, and future revisers will find hundreds more. The\nfoundation crumbles. That book, called the basis of all law and\ncivilization, has to be civilized itself. We have outgrown it.\nOur laws are better; our institutions grander; our objects and aims\nnobler and higher.\n\n_Question_. Do many people write to you upon this subject; and\nwhat spirit do they manifest?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, I get a great many anonymous letters--some letters\nin which God is asked to strike me dead, others of an exceedingly\ninsulting character, others almost idiotic, others exceedingly\nmalicious, and others insane, others written in an exceedingly good\nspirit, winding up with the information that I must certainly be\ndamned. Others express wonder that God allowed me to live at all,\nand that, having made the mistake, he does not instantly correct\nit by killing me. Others prophesy that I will yet be a minister\nof the gospel; but, as there has never been any softening of the\nbrain in our family, I imagine that the prophecy will never by\nfulfilled. Lately, on opening a letter and seeing that it is upon\nthis subject, and without a signature, I throw it aside without\nreading. I have so often found them to be so grossly ignorant,\ninsulting and malicious, that as a rule I read them no more.\n\n_Question_. Of the hundreds of people who call upon you nearly\nevery day to ask your help, do any of them ever discriminate against\nyou on account of your Infidelity?\n\n_Answer_. No one who has asked a favor of me objects to my religion,\nor, rather, to my lack of it. A great many people do come to me\nfor assistance of one kind or another. But I have never yet asked\na man or woman whether they were religious or not, to what church\nthey belonged, or any questions upon the subject. I think I have\ndone favors for persons of most denominations. It never occurs to\nme whether they are Christians or Infidels. I do not care. Of\ncourse, I do not expect that Christians will treat me the same as\nthough I belonged to their church. I have never expected it. In\nsome instances I have been disappointed. I have some excellent\nfriends who disagree with me entirely upon the subject of religion.\nMy real opinion is that secretly they like me because I am not a\nChristian, and those who do not like me envy the liberty I enjoy.\n\n--New York correspondent, _Chicago Times_, May 29, 1881.\n\n\nGUITEAU AND HIS CRIME.*\n\n[* Our \"Royal Bob\" was found by _The Gazette_, in the gloaming of\na delicious evening, during the past week, within the open portals\nof his friendly residence, dedicated by the gracious presence within\nto a simple and cordial hospitality, to the charms of friendship and\nthe freedom of an abounding comradeship. With intellectual and\nuntrammeled life, a generous, wise and genial host, whoever enters\nfinds a welcome, seasoned with kindly wit and Attic humor, a poetic\ninsight and a delicious frankness which renders an evening there a\nveritable symposium. The wayfarer who passes is charmed, and he who\ncomes frequently, goes always away with delighted memories.\n\nWhat matters it that we differ? such as he and his make our common\nlife the sweeter. An hour or two spent in the attractive parlors\nof the Ingersoll homestead, amid that rare group, lends a newer\nmeaning to the idea of home and a more secure beauty to the fact\nof family life. During the past exciting three weeks Colonel\nIngersoll has been a busy man. He holds no office. No position\ncould lend him an additional crown and even recognition is no longer\nnecessary. But it has been well that amid the first fierce fury\nof anger and excitement, and the subsequent more bitter if not as\nnoble outpouring of faction's suspicions and innuendoes, that so\nmanly a man, so sagacious a counsellor, has been enabled to hold\nso positive a balance. Cabinet officers, legal functionaries,\ndetectives, citizens--all have felt the wise, humane instincts,\nand the capacious brain of this marked man affecting and influencing\nfor this fair equipoise and calmer judgment.\n\nConversing freely on the evening of this visit, Colonel Ingersoll,\nin the abundance of his pleasure at the White House news, submitted\nto be interviewed, and with the following result.]\n\n_Question_. By-the-way, Colonel, you knew Guiteau slightly, we\nbelieve. Are you aware that it has been attempted to show that\nsome money loaned or given him by yourself was really what he\npurchased the pistol with?\n\n_Answer_. I knew Guiteau slightly; I saw him for the first time\na few days after the inauguration. He wanted a consulate, and\nasked me to give him a letter to Secretary Blaine. I refused, on\nthe ground that I didn't know him. Afterwards he wanted me to lend\nhim twenty-five dollars, and I declined. I never loaned him a\ndollar in the world. If I had, I should not feel that I was guilty\nof trying to kill the President. On the principle that one would\nhold the man guilty who had innocently loaned the money with which\nhe bought the pistol, you might convict the tailor who made his\nclothes. If he had had no clothes he would not have gone to the\ndepot naked, and the crime would not have been committed. It is\nhard enough for the man who did lend him the money to lose that,\nwithout losing his reputation besides. Nothing can exceed the\nutter absurdity of what has been said upon this subject.\n\n_Question_. How did Guiteau impress you and what have you remembered,\nColonel, of his efforts to reply to your lectures?\n\n_Answer_. I do not know that Guiteau impressed me in any way. He\nappeared like most other folks in search of a place or employment.\nI suppose he was in need. He talked about the same as other people,\nand claimed that I ought to help him because he was from Chicago.\nThe second time he came to see me he said that he hoped I had no\nprejudice against him on account of what he had said about me. I\ntold him that I never knew he had said anything against me. I\nsuppose now that he referred to what he had said in his lectures.\nHe went about the country replying to me. I have seen one or two\nof his lectures. He used about the same arguments that Mr. Black\nuses in his reply to my article in the _North American Review_,\nand denounced me in about the same terms. He is undoubtedly a man\nwho firmly believes in the Old Testament, and has no doubt concerning\nthe New. I understand that he puts in most of his time now reading\nthe Bible and rebuking people who use profane language in his\npresence.\n\n_Question_. You most certainly do not see any foundation for the\naccusations of preachers like Sunderland, Newman and Power, _et\nal_, that the teaching of a secular liberalism has had anything to\ndo with the shaping of Guiteau's character or the actions of his\nvagabond life or the inciting to his murderous deeds?\n\n_Answer_. I do not think that the sermon of Mr. Power was in good\ntaste. It is utterly foolish to charge the \"Stalwarts\" with\ncommitting or inciting the crime against the life of the President.\nMinisters, though, as a rule, know but little of public affairs,\nand they always account for the actions of people they do not like\nor agree with, by attributing to them the lowest and basest motives.\nThis is the fault of the pulpit--always has been, and probably\nalways will be. The Rev. Dr. Newman of New York, tells us that\nthe crime of Guiteau shows three things: First, that ignorant men\nshould not be allowed to vote; second, that foreigners should not\nbe allowed to vote; and third, that there should not be so much\nreligious liberty.\n\nIt turns out, first, the Guiteau is not an ignorant man; second,\nthat he is not a foreigner; and third, that he is a Christian.\nNow, because an intelligent American Christian tries to murder the\nPresident, this person says we ought to do something with ignorant\nforeigners and Infidels. This is about the average pulpit logic.\nOf course, all the ministers hate to admit the Guiteau was a\nChristian; that he belonged to the Young Men's Christian Association,\nor at least was generally found in their rooms; that he was a\nfollower of Moody and Sankey, and probably instrumental in the\nsalvation of a great many souls. I do not blame them for wishing\nto get rid of this record. What I blame them for is that they are\nimpudent enough to charge the crime of Guiteau upon Infidelity.\nInfidels and Atheists have often killed tyrants. They have often\ncommitted crimes to increase the liberty of mankind; but the history\nof the world will not show an instance where an Infidel or an\nAtheist has assassinated any man in the interest of human slavery.\nOf course, I am exceedingly glad that Guiteau is not an Infidel.\nI am glad that he believes the Bible, glad that he has delivered\nlectures against what he calls Infidelity, and glad that he has\nbeen working for years with the missionaries and evangelists of\nthe United States. He is a man of small brain, badly balanced.\nHe believes the Bible to be the word of God. He believes in the\nreality of heaven and hell. He believes in the miraculous. He is\nsurrounded by the supernatural, and when a man throws away his\nreason, of course no one can tell what he will do. He is liable\nto become a devotee or an assassin, a saint or a murderer; he may\ndie in a monastery or in a penitentiary.\n\n_Question_. According to your view, then, the species of fanaticism\ntaught in sectarian Christianity, by which Guiteau was led to assert\nthat Garfield dead would be better off then living--being in Paradise\n--is more responsible than office seeking or political factionalism\nfor his deed?\n\n_Answer_. Guiteau seemed to think that the killing of the President\nwould only open the gates of Paradise to him, and that, after all,\nunder such circumstances, murder was hardly a crime. This same\nkind of reasoning is resorted to in the pulpit to account for death.\nIf Guiteau had succeeded in killing the President, hundreds of\nministers would have said, \"After all, it may be that the President\nhas lost nothing; it may be that our loss is his eternal gain; and\nalthough it seems cruel that Providence should allow a man like\nhim to be murdered, still, it may have been the very kindest thing\nthat could have been done for him.\" Guiteau reasoned in this way,\nand probably convinced himself, judging from his own life, that\nthis world was, after all, of very little worth. We are apt to\nmeasure others by ourselves. Of course, I do not think Christianity\nis responsible for this crime. Superstition may have been, in part\n--probably was. But no man believes in Christianity because he\nthinks it sanctions murder. At the same time, an absolute belief\nin the Bible sometimes produces the worst form of murder. Take\nthat of Mr. Freeman, of Poeasset, who stabbed his little daughter\nto the heart in accordance with what he believed to be the command\nof God. This poor man imitated Abraham; and, for that matter,\nJehovah himself. There have been in the history of Christianity\nthousands and thousands of such instances, and there will probably\nbe many thousands more that have been and will be produced by\nthrowing away our own reason and taking the word of some one else\n--often a word that we do not understand.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion as to the effect of praying for\nthe recovery of the President, and have you any confidence that\nprayers are answered?\n\n_Answer_. My opinion as to the value of prayer is well known. I\ntake it that every one who prays for the President shows at least\nhis sympathy and good will. Personally, I have no objection to\nanybody's praying. Those who think their prayers are answered\nshould pray. For all who honestly believe this, and who honestly\nimplore their Deity to watch over, protect, and save the life of\nthe President, I have only the kindliest feelings.\n\nIt may be that a few will pray to be seen of men; but I suppose\nthat most people on a subject like this are honest. Personally,\nI have not the slightest idea of the existence of the supernatural.\nPrayer may affect the person who prays. It may put him in such a\nframe of mind that he can better bear disappointment than if he\nhad not prayed; but I cannot believe that there is any being who\nhears and answers prayer.\n\nWhen we remember the earthquakes that have devoured, the pestilences\nthat have covered the earth with corpses, and all the crimes and\nagonies that have been inflicted upon the good and weak by the bad\nand strong, it does not seem possible that anything can be accomplished\nby prayer. I do not wish to hurt the feelings of anyone, but I\nimagine that I have a right to my own opinion. If the President\ngets well it will be because the bullet did not strike an absolutely\nvital part; it will be because he has been well cared for; because\nhe has had about him intelligent and skillful physicians, men who\nunderstood their profession. No doubt he has received great support\nfrom the universal expression of sympathy and kindness. The\nknowledge that fifty millions of people are his friends has given\nhim nerve and hope. Some of the ministers, I see, think that God\nwas actually present and deflected the ball. Another minister\ntells us that the President would have been assassinated in a\nchurch, but that God determined not to allow so frightful a crime\nto be committed in so sacred an edifice. All this sounds to me\nlike perfect absurdity--simple noise. Yet, I presume that those\nwho talk in this way are good people and believe what they say.\nOf course, they can give no reason why God did not deflect the ball\nwhen Lincoln was assassinated. The truth is, the pulpit first\nendeavors to find out the facts, and then to make a theory to fit\nthem. Whoever believes in a special providence must, of necessity,\nby illogical and absurd; because it is impossible to make any\ntheological theory that some facts will not contradict.\n\n_Question_. Won't you give us, then, Colonel, your analysis of\nthis act, and the motives leading to it?\n\n_Answer_. I think Guiteau wanted an office and was refused. He\nbecame importunate. He was, substantially, put out of the White\nHouse. He became malicious. He made up his mind to be revenged.\nThis, in my judgment, is the diagnosis of his case. Since he has\nbeen in jail he has never said one word about having been put out\nof the White House; he is lawyer enough to know he must not furnish\nany ground for malice. He is a miserable, malicious and worthless\nwretch, infinitely egotistical, imagines that he did a great deal\ntoward the election of Garfield, and upon being refused the house\na serpent of malice coiled in his heart, and he determined to be\nrevenged. That is all!\n\n_Question_. Do you, in any way, see any reason or foundation for\nthe severe and bitter criticisms made against the Stalwart leaders\nin connection with this crime? As you are well known to be a friend\nof the administration, while not unfriendly to Mr. Conkling and\nthose acting with him, would you mind giving the public your opinion\non this point?\n\n_Answer_. Of course, I do not hold Arthur, Conkling and Platt\nresponsible for Guiteau's action. In the first excitement a thousand\nunreasonable things were said; and when passion has possession of\nthe brain, suspicion is a welcome visitor.\n\nI do not think that any friend of the administration really believes\nConkling, Platt and Arthur responsible in the slightest degree.\nConkling wished to prevent the appointment of Robertson. The\nPresident stood by his friend. One thing brought on another, Mr.\nConkling petulantly resigned, and made the mistake of his life.\nThere was a good deal of feeling, but, of course, no one dreamed\nthat the wretch, Guiteau, was lying in wait for the President's\nlife. In the first place, Guiteau was on the President's side,\nand was bitterly opposed to Conkling. Guiteau did what he did from\nmalice and personal spite. I think the sermon preached last Sunday\nin the Campbellite Church was unwise, ill advised, and calculated\nto make enemies instead of friends. Mr. Conkling has been beaten.\nHe has paid for the mistake he made. If he can stand it, I can;\nand why should there be any malice on the subject? Exceedingly\ngood men have made mistakes, and afterward corrected them.\n\n_Question_. Is it not true, Colonel Ingersoll, that the lesson of\nthis deed is to point the real and overwhelming need of re-knitting\nand harmonizing the factions?\n\n_Answer_. There is hardly enough faction left for \"knitting.\"\nThe party is in harmony now. All that is necessary is to stop\ntalking. The people of this country care very little as to who\nholds any particular office. They wish to have the Government\nadministered in accordance with certain great principles, and they\nleave the fields, the shops, and the stores once in four years,\nfor the purpose of attending to that business. In the meantime,\npoliticians quarrel about offices. The people go on. They plow\nfields, they build homes, they open mines, they enrich the world,\nthey cover our country with prosperity, and enjoy the aforesaid\nquarrels. But when the time comes, these gentlemen are forgotten.\n\nPrinciples take the place of politicians, and the people settle\nthese questions for themselves.\n\n--_Sunday Gazette_, Washington, D. C., July 24, 1881.\n\n\nDISTRICT SUFFRAGE.\n\n_Question_. You have heretofore incidentally expressed yourself\non the matter of local suffrage in the District of Columbia. Have\nyou any objections to giving your present views of the question?\n\n_Answer_. I am still in favor of suffrage in the District. The\nreal trouble is, that before any substantial relief can be reached,\nthere must be a change in the Constitution of the United States.\nThe mere right to elect aldermen and mayors and policemen is of no\ngreat importance. It is a mistake to take all political power from\nthe citizens of the District. Americans want to help rule the\ncountry. The District ought to have at least one Representative\nin Congress, and should elect one presidential elector. The people\nhere should have a voice. They should feel that they are a part\nof this country. They should have the right to sue in all Federal\ncourts, precisely as though they were citizens of a State. This\ncity ought to have half a million of inhabitants. Thousands would\ncome here every year from every part of the Union, were it not for\nthe fact that they do not wish to become political nothings. They\nthink that citizenship is worth something, and they preserve it by\nstaying away from Washington. This city is a \"flag of truce\" where\nwounded and dead politicians congregate; the Mecca of failures,\nthe perdition of claimants, the purgatory of seekers after place,\nand the heaven only of those who neither want nor do anything.\nNothing is manufactured, no solid business is done in this city,\nand there never will be until energetic, thrifty people wish to\nmake it their home, and they will not wish that until the people\nof the District have something like the rights and political\nprospects of other citizens. It is hard to see why the right to\nrepresentation should be taken from citizens living in the Capital\nof the Nation. The believers in free government should believe in\na free capital.\n\n_Question_. Are there any valid reasons why the constitutional\nlimitations to the elective franchise in the District of Columbia\nshould not be removed by an amendment to that instrument?\n\n_Answer_. I cannot imagine one. If our Government is founded upon\na correct principle there can be no objection urged against suffrage\nin the District that cannot, with equal force, be urged against\nevery part of the country. If freedom is dangerous here, it is\nsafe nowhere. If a man cannot be trusted in the District, he is\ndangerous in the State. We do not trust the place where the man\nhappens to be; we trust the man. The people of this District cannot\nremain in their present condition without becoming dishonored.\nThe idea of allowing themselves to be governed by commissioners,\nin whose selection they have no part, is monstrous. The people\nhere beg, implore, request, ask, pray, beseech, intercede, crave,\nurge, entreat, supplicate, memorialize and most humbly petition,\nbut they neither vote nor demand. They are not allowed to enter\nthe Temple of Liberty; they stay in the lobby or sit on the steps.\n\n_Question_. They say Paris is France, because her electors or\ncitizens control that municipality. Do you foresee any danger of\ncentralization in the full enfranchisement of the citizens of\nWashington?\n\n_Answer_. There was a time when the intelligence of France was in\nParis. The country was besotted, ignorant, Catholic; Paris was\nalive, educated, Infidel, full of new theories, of passion and\nheroism. For two hundred years Paris was an athlete chained to a\ncorpse. The corpse was the rest of France. It is different now,\nand the whole country is at last filling with light. Besides,\nParis has two millions of people. It is filled with factories.\nIt is not only the intellectual center, but the center of money\nand business as well. Let the _Corps Legislatif_ meet anywhere,\nand Paris will continue to be in a certain splendid sense--France.\nNothing like that can ever happen here unless you expect Washington\nto outstrip New York, Philadelphia and Chicago. If allowing the\npeople of the District of Columbia to vote was the only danger to\nthe Republic, I should be politically the happiest of men. I think\nit somewhat dangerous to deprive even one American citizen of the\nright to govern himself.\n\n_Question_. Would you have Government clerks and officials appointed\nto office here given the franchise in the District? and should\nthis, if given, include the women clerks?\n\n_Answer_. Citizenship should be determined here as in the States.\nClerks should not be allowed to vote unless their intention is to\nmake the District their home. When I make a government I shall\ngive one vote to each family. The unmarried should not be represented\nexcept by parents. Let the family be the unit of representation.\nGive each hearthstone a vote.\n\n_Question_. How do you regard the opposition of the local clergy\nand of the Bourbon Democracy to enfranchising the citizens of the\nDistrict?\n\n_Answer_. I did not know that the clergy did oppose it. If, as\nyou say, they do oppose it because they fear it will extend the\nliquor traffic, I think their reason exceedingly stupid. You cannot\nmake men temperate by shutting up a few of the saloons and leaving\nothers wide open. Intemperance must be met with other weapons.\nThe church ought not to appeal to force. What would the clergy of\nWashington think should the miracle of Cana be repeated in their\nday? Had they been in that country, with their present ideas, what\nwould they have said? After all there is a great deal of philosophy\nin the following: \"Better have the whole world voluntarily drunk\nthen sober on compulsion.\" Of course the Bourbons object. Objecting\nis the business of a Bourbon. He always objects. If he does not\nunderstand the question he objects because he does not, and if he\ndoes understand he objects because he does. With him the reason\nfor objecting is the fact that he does.\n\n_Question_. What effect, if any, would the complete franchise to\nour citizens have upon real estate and business in Washington?\n\n_Answer_. If the people here had representation according to\nnumbers--if the avenues to political preferment were open--if men\nhere could take part in the real government of the country, if they\ncould bring with them all their rights, this would be a great and\nsplendid Capital. We ought to have here a University, the best in\nthe world, a library second to none, and here should be gathered\nthe treasures of American art. The Federal Government has been\ninfinitely economical in the direction of information. I hope the\ntime will come when our Government will give as much to educate\ntwo men as to kill one.\n\n--_The Capital_, Washington, D. C., December 18, 1881.\n\n\nFUNERAL OF JOHN G. MILLS AND IMMORTALITY.*\n\n[* Robert G. Ingersoll rarely takes the trouble to answer critics.\nHis recent address over the dead body of his friend John G. Mills\nhas called forth a storm of denunciation from nearly every pulpit\nin the country. The writer called at the Colonel's office in New York\nAvenue yesterday and asked him to reply to some of the points made\nagainst him. Reluctantly he assented.]\n\n_Question_. Have you seen the recent clerical strictures upon your\ndoctrines?\n\n_Answer_. There are always people kind enough to send me anything\nthey have the slightest reason to think I do not care to read.\nThey seem to be animated by a missionary spirit, and apparently\nwant to be in a position when they see me in hell to exclaim: \"You\ncan't blame me. I sent you all the impudent articles I saw, and\nif you died unconverted it was no fault of mine.\"\n\n_Question_. Did you notice that a Washington clergyman said that\nthe very fact that you were allowed to speak at the funeral was in\nitself a sacrilege, and that you ought to have been stopped?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, I saw some such story. Of course, the clergy regard\nmarriages and funerals as the perquisites of the pulpit, and they\nresent any interference on the part of the pews. They look at\nthese matters from a business point of view. They made the same\ncry against civil marriages. They denied that marriage was a\ncontract, and insisted that it was a sacrament, and that it was\nhardly binding unless a priest had blessed it. They used to bury\nin consecrated ground, and had marks upon the graves, so that\nGabriel might know the ones to waken. The clergy wish to make\nthemselves essential. They must christen the babe--this gives them\npossession of the cradle. They must perform the ceremony of marriage\n--this gives them possession of the family. They must pronounce\nthe funeral discourse--this gives them possession of the dead.\nFormerly they denied baptism to the children of the unbeliever,\nmarriage to him who denied the dogmas of the church, and burial to\nhonest men. The church wishes to control the world, and wishes to\nsacrifice this world for the next. Of course I am in favor of the\nutmost liberty upon all these questions. When a Presbyterian dies,\nlet a follower of John Calvin console the living by setting forth\nthe \"Five Points.\" When a Catholic becomes clay, let a priest\nperform such ceremonies as his creed demands, and let him picture\nthe delights of purgatory for the gratification of the living.\nAnd when one dies who does not believe in any religion, having\nexpressed a wish that somebody say a few words above his remains,\nI see no reason why such a proceeding should be stopped, and, for\nmy part, I see no sacrilege in it. Why should the reputations of\nthe dead, and the feelings of those who live, be placed at the\nmercy of the ministers? A man dies not having been a Christian,\nand who, according to the Christian doctrine, is doomed to eternal\nfire. How would an honest Christian minister console the widow\nand the fatherless children? How would he dare to tell what he\nclaims to be truth in the presence of the living? The truth is,\nthe Christian minister in the presence of death abandons his\nChristianity. He dare not say above the coffin, \"the soul that\nonce inhabited this body is now in hell.\" He would be denounced\nas a brutal savage. Now and then a minister at a funeral has been\nbrave enough and unmannerly enough to express his doctrine in all\nits hideousness of hate. I was told that in Chicago, many years\nago, a young man, member of a volunteer fire company, was killed\nby the falling of a wall, and at the very moment the wall struck\nhim he was uttering a curse. He was a brave and splendid man. An\northodox minister said above his coffin, in the presence of his\nmother and mourning friends, that he saw no hope for the soul of\nthat young man. The mother, who was also orthodox, refused to have\nher boy buried with such a sermon--stopped the funeral, took the\ncorpse home, engaged a Universalist preacher, and, on the next day\nhaving heard this man say that there was no place in the wide\nuniverse of God without hope, and that her son would finally stand\namong the redeemed, this mother laid her son away, put flowers upon\nhis grave, and was satisfied.\n\n_Question_. What have you to say to the charge that you are\npreaching the doctrine of despair and hopelessness, when they have\nthe comforting assurances of the Christian religion to offer?\n\n_Answer_. All I have to say is this: If the Christian religion\nis true, as commonly preached--and when I speak of Christianity,\nI speak of the orthodox Christianity of the day--if that be true,\nthose whom I have loved the best are now in torment. Those to whom\nI am most deeply indebted are now suffering the vengeance of God.\nIf this religion be true, the future is of no value to me. I care\nnothing about heaven, unless the ones I love and have loved are\nthere. I know nothing about the angels. I might not like them,\nand they might not like me. I would rather meet there the ones\nwho have loved me here--the ones who would have died for me, and\nfor whom I would have died; and if we are to be eternally divided\n--not because we differed in our views of justice, not because we\ndiffered about friendship or love or candor, or the nobility of\nhuman action, but because we differed in belief about the atonement\nor baptism or the inspiration of the Scriptures--and if some of us\nare to be in heaven, and some in hell, then, for my part, I prefer\neternal sleep. To me the doctrine of annihilation is infinitely\nmore consoling, than the probable separation preached by the orthodox\nclergy of our time. Of course, even if there be a God, I like\npersons that I know, better than I can like him--we have more in\ncommon--I know more about them; and how is it possible for me to\nlove the infinite and unknown better than the ones I know? Why\nnot have the courage to say that if there be a God, all I know\nabout him I know by knowing myself and my friends--by knowing\nothers? And, after all, is not a noble man, is not a pure woman,\nthe finest revelation we have of God--if there be one? Of what\nuse is it to be false to ourselves? What moral quality is there\nin theological pretence? Why should a man say that he loves God\nbetter than he does his wife or his children or his brother or his\nsister or his warm, true friend? Several ministers have objected\nto what I said about my friend Mr. Mills, on the ground that it\nwas not calculated to console the living. Mr. Mills was not a\nChristian. He denied the inspiration of the Scriptures. He believed\nthat restitution was the best repentance, and that, after all, sin\nis a mistake. He was not a believer in total depravity, or in the\natonement. He denied these things. He was an unbeliever. Now,\nlet me ask, what consolation could a Christian minister have given\nto his family? He could have said to the widow and the orphans,\nto the brother and sister: \"Your husband, your father, your brother,\nis now in hell; dry your tears; weep not for him, but try and save\nyourselves. He has been damned as a warning to you, care no more\nfor him, why should you weep over the grave of a man whom God thinks\nfit only to be eternally tormented? Why should you love the memory\nof one whom God hates?\" The minister could have said: \"He had an\nopportunity--he did not take it. The life-boat was lowered--he\nwould not get in--he has been drowned, and the waves of God's wrath\nwill sweep over him forever.\" This is the consolation of Christianity\nand the only honest consolation that Christianity can have for the\nwidow and orphans of an unbeliever. Suppose, however, that the\nChristian minister has too tender a heart to tell what he believes\nto be the truth--then he can say to the sorrowing friends: \"Perhaps\nthe man repented before he died; perhaps he is not in hell, perhaps\nyou may meet him in heaven;\" and this \"perhaps\" is a consolation\nnot growing out of Christianity, but out of the politeness of the\npreacher--out of paganism.\n\n_Question_. Do you not think that the Bible has consolation for\nthose who have lost their friends?\n\n_Answer_. There is about the Old Testament this strange fact--I\nfind in it no burial service. There is in it, I believe, from the\nfirst mistake in Genesis to the last curse in Malachi, not one word\nsaid over the dead as to their place and state. When Abraham died,\nnobody said: \"He is still alive--he is in another world.\" When\nthe prophets passed away, not one word was said as to the heaven\nto which they had gone. In the Old Testament, Saul inquired of\nthe witch, and Samuel rose. Samuel did not pretend that he had\nbeen living, or that he was alive, but asked: \"Why hast thou\ndisquieted me?\" He did not pretend to have come from another world.\nAnd when David speaks of his son, saying that he could not come\nback to him, but that he, David, could go to his son, that is but\nsaying that he, too, must die. There is not in the Old Testament\none hope of immortality. It is expressly asserted that there is\nno difference between the man and beast--that as the one dieth so\ndieth the other. There is one little passage in Job which commentators\nhave endeavored to twist into a hope of immortality. Here is a\nbook of hundreds and hundreds of pages, and hundreds and hundreds\nof chapters--a revelation from God--and in it one little passage,\nwhich, by a mistranslation, is tortured into saying something about\nanother life. And this is the Old Testament. I have sometimes\nthought that the Jews, when slaves in Egypt, were mostly occupied\nin building tombs for mummies, and that they became so utterly\ndisgusted with that kind of work, that the moment they founded a\nnation for themselves they went out of the tomb business. The\nEgyptians were believers in immortality, and spent almost their\nentire substance upon the dead. The living were impoverished to\nenrich the dead. The grave absorbed the wealth of Egypt. The\nindustry of a nation was buried. Certainly the Old Testament has\nnothing clearly in favor of immortality. In the New Testament we\nare told about the \"kingdom of heaven,\"--that it is at hand--and\nabout who shall be worthy, but it is hard to tell what is meant by\nthe kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of heaven was apparently to be\nin this world, and it was about to commence. The Devil was to be\nchained for a thousand years, the wicked were to be burned up, and\nChrist and his followers were to enjoy the earth. This certainly\nwas the doctrine of Paul when he says: \"Behold, I show you a\nmystery; We shall not all _sleep_, but we shall all be _changed_.\nIn a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for\nthe trumpet shall sound, and the _dead_ shall be _raised_ incorruptible,\nand _we_ shall be _changed_. For this corruptible must put on\nincorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.\" According\nto this doctrine, those who were alive were to be changed, and\nthose who had died were to be raised from the dead. Paul certainly\ndid not refer to any other world beyond this. All these things\nwere to happen here. The New Testament is made up of the fragments\nof many religions. It is utterly inconsistent with itself; and\nthere is not a particle of evidence of the resurrection and ascension\nof Christ--neither in the nature of things could there be. It is\na thousand times more probable that people were mistaken than that\nsuch things occurred. If Christ really rose from the dead, he\nshould have shown himself, not simply to his disciples, but to the\nvery men who crucified him--to Herod, to the high priest, to Pilate.\nHe should have made a triumphal entry into Jerusalem after his\nresurrection, instead of before. He should have shown himself to\nthe Sadducees,--to those who denied the existence of spirit. Take\nfrom the New Testament its doctrine of eternal pain--the idea that\nwe can please God by acts of self-denial that can do no good to\nothers--take away all its miracles, and I have no objection to all\nthe good things in it--no objection to the hope of a future life,\nif such a hope is expressed--not the slightest. And I would not\nfor the world say anything to take from any mind a hope in which\ndwells the least comfort, but a doctrine that dooms a large majority\nof mankind to eternal flames ought not to be called a consolation.\nWhat I say is, that the writers of the New Testament knew no more\nabout the future state than I do, and no less. The horizon of life\nhas never been pierced. The veil between time and what is called\neternity, has never been raised, so far as I know; and I say of\nthe dead what all others must say if they say only what they know.\nThere is no particular consolation in a guess. Not knowing what\nthe future has in store for the human race, it is far better to\nprophesy good than evil. It is better to hope that the night has\na dawn, that the sky has a star, than to build a heaven for the\nfew, and a hell for the many. It is better to leave your dead in\ndoubt than in fire--better that they should sleep in shadow than\nin the lurid flames of perdition. And so I say, and always have\nsaid, let us hope for the best. The minister asks: \"What right\nhave you to hope? It is sacrilegious in you!\" But, whether the\nclergy like it or not, I shall always express my real opinion, and\nshall always be glad to say to those who mourn: \"There is in death,\nas I believe, nothing worse than sleep. Hope for as much better\nas you can. Under the seven-hued arch let the dead rest.\" Throw\naway the Bible, and you throw away the fear of hell, but the hope\nof another life remains, because the hope does not depend upon a\nbook--it depends upon the heart--upon human affection. The fear,\nso far as this generation is concerned, is born of the book, and\nthat part of the book was born of savagery. Whatever of hope is\nin the book is born, as I said before, of human affection, and the\nhigher our civilization the greater the affection. I had rather\nrest my hope of something beyond the grave upon the human heart,\nthan upon what they call the Scriptures, because there I find\nmingled with the hope of something good the threat of infinite\nevil. Among the thistles, thorns and briers of the Bible is one\npale and sickly flower of hope. Among all its wild beasts and\nfowls, only one bird flies heavenward. I prefer the hope without\nthe thorns, without the briers, thistles, hyenas, and serpents.\n\n_Question_. Do you not know that it is claimed that immortality\nwas brought to light in the New Testament, that that, in fact, was\nthe principal mission of Christ?\n\n_Answer_. I know that Christians claim that the doctrine of\nimmortality was first taught in the New Testament. They also claim\nthat the highest morality was found there. Both these claims are\nutterly without foundation. Thousands of years before Christ was\nborn--thousands of years before Moses saw the light--the doctrine\nof immortality was preached by the priests of Osiris and Isis.\nFuneral discourses were pronounced over the dead, ages before\nAbraham existed. When a man died in Egypt, before he was taken\nacross the sacred lake, he had a trial. Witnesses appeared, and\nif he had done anything wrong, for which he had not done restitution,\nhe was not taken across the lake. The living friends, in disgrace,\ncarried the body back, and it was buried outside of what might be\ncalled consecrated ground, while the ghost was supposed to wander\nfor a hundred years. Often the children of the dead would endeavor\nto redeem the poor ghost by acts of love and kindness. When he\ncame to the spirit world there was the god Anubis, who weighed his\nheart in the scales of eternal justice, and if the good deed\npreponderated he entered the gates of Paradise; if the evil, he\nhad to go back to the world, and be born in the bodies of animals\nfor the purpose of final purification. At last, the good deeds\nwould outweigh the evil, and, according to the religion of Egypt,\nthe latch-string of heaven would never be drawn in until the last\nwanderer got home. Immortality was also taught in India, and, in\nfact, in all the countries of antiquity. Wherever men have loved,\nwherever they have dreamed, wherever hope has spread its wings,\nthe idea of immortality has existed. But nothing could be worse\nthan the immortality promised in the New Testament--admitting that\nit is so promised--eternal joy side by side with eternal pain.\nThink of living forever, knowing that countless millions are\nsuffering eternal pain! How much better it would be for God to\ncommit suicide and let all life and motion cease! Christianity\nhas no consolation except for the Christian, and if a Christian\nminister endeavors to console the widow of an unbeliever he must\nresort, not to his religion, but to his sympathy--to the natural\npromptings of the heart. He is compelled to say: \"After all, may\nbe God is not so bad as we think,\" or, \"May be your husband was\nbetter than he appeared; perhaps somehow, in some way, the dear\nman has squeezed in; he was a good husband, he was a kind father,\nand even if he is in hell, may be he is in the temperate zone,\nwhere they have occasional showers, and where, if the days are hot,\nthe nights are reasonably cool.\" All I ask of Christian ministers\nis to tell what they believe to be the truth--not to borrow ideas\nfrom the pagans--not to preach the mercy born of unregenerate\nsympathy. Let them tell their real doctrines. If they will do\nthat, they will not have much influence. If orthodox Christianity\nis true, a large majority of the man who have made this world fit\nto live in are now in perdition. A majority of the Revolutionary\nsoldiers have been damned. A majority of the man who fought for\nthe integrity of this Union--a majority who were starved at Libby\nand Andersonville are now in hell.\n\n_Question_. Do you deny the immortality of the soul?\n\n_Answer_. I have never denied the immortality of the soul. I have\nsimply been honest. I have said: \"I do not know.\" Long ago, in\nmy lecture on \"The Ghosts,\" I used the following language: \"The\nidea of immortality, that like a sea has ebbed and flowed in the\nhuman heart, with its countless waves of hope and fear beating\nagainst the shores and rocks of time and fate, was not born of any\nbook, nor of any creed, nor of any religion. It was born of human\naffection, and it will continue to ebb and flow beneath the mists\nand clouds of doubt and darkness as long as love kisses the lips\nof death. It is the rainbow Hope, shining upon the tears of grief.\"\n\n--_The Post_, Washington, D. C., April 30, 1883.\n\n\nSTAR ROUTE AND POLITICS.*\n\n[* Col. Ingersoll entertains very pronounced ideas concerning\nPresident Arthur, Attorney-General Brewster and divers other people,\nwhich will be found presented herewith in characteristically piquant\nstyle. With his family, the eloquent advocate has a cottage here,\nand finds brain and body rest and refreshment in the tumbling waves.\nThis noon, in the height of a tremendous thunder storm, I bumped\nagainst his burly figure in the roaring crest, and, after the first\nshock had passed, determined to utilize the providential coincidence.\nThe water was warm, our clothes were in the bathing houses, and\ncomfort was more certain where we were than anywhere else. The\nColonel is an expert swimmer and as a floater he cannot be beaten.\nHe was floating when we bumped. Spouting a pint of salt water from\nhis mouth, he nearly choked with laughter as in answer to my question\nhe said: ]\n\nNo, I do not believe there will be any more Star Route trials.\nThere is so much talk about the last one, there will not be time\nfor another.\n\n_Question_. Did you anticipate a verdict?\n\n_Answer_. I did anticipate a verdict, and one of acquittal. I\nknew that the defendants were entitled to such a verdict. I knew\nthat the Government had signally failed to prove a case. There\nwas nothing but suspicion, from which malice was inferred. The\ndirect proof was utterly unworthy of belief. The direct witness\nwas caught with letters he had forged. This one fact was enough\nto cover the prosecution with confusion. The fact that Rerdell\nsat with the other defendants and reported to the Government from\nday to day satisfied the jury as to the value of his testimony,\nand the animus of the Department of Justice. Besides, Rerdell had\noffered to challenge such jurors as the Government might select.\nHe handed counsel for defendants a list of four names that he wanted\nchallenged. At that time it was supposed that each defendant would\nbe allowed to challenge four jurors. Afterward the Court decided\nthat all the defendants must be considered as one party and had\nthe right to challenge four and no more. Of the four names on\nRerdell's list the Government challenged three and Rerdell tried\nto challenge the other. This was what is called a coincidence.\nAnother thing had great influence with the jury--the evidence of\nthe defendants was upon all material points so candid and so natural,\nso devoid of all coloring, that the jury could not help believing.\nIf the people knew the evidence they would agree with the jury.\nWhen we remember that there were over ten thousand star routes, it\nis not to be wondered at that some mistakes were made--that in some\ninstances too much was paid and in others too little.\n\n_Question_. What has been the attitude of President Arthur?\n\n_Answer_. We asked nothing from the President. We wanted no help\nfrom him. We expected that he would take no part--that he would\nsimply allow the matter to be settled by the court in the usual\nway. I think that he made one very serious mistake. He removed\nofficers on false charges without giving them a hearing. He deposed\nMarshal Henry because somebody said that he was the friend of the\ndefendants. Henry was a good officer and an honest man. The\nPresident removed Ainger for the same reason. This was a mistake.\nAinger should have been heard. There is always time to do justice.\nNo day is too short for justice, and eternity is not long enough\nto commit a wrong. It was thought that the community could be\nterrorized:--\n\n_First_. The President dismissed Henry and Ainger.\n\n_Second_. The Attorney-General wrote a letter denouncing the\ndefendants as thieves and robbers.\n\n_Third_. Other letters from Bliss and MacVeagh were published.\n\n_Fourth_. Dixon, the foreman of the first jury, was indicted.\n\n_Fifth_. Members of the first jury voting \"guilty\" were in various\nways rewarded.\n\n_Sixth_. Bargains were made with Boone and Rerdell. The cases\nagainst Boone were to be dismissed and Rerdell was promised immunity.\nUnder these circumstances the second trial commenced. But of all\nthe people in this country the citizens of Washington care least\nfor Presidents and members of the Cabinets. They know what these\nofficers are made of. They know that they are simply folks--that\nthey do not hold office forever--that the Jupiters of to-day are\noften the pygmies of to-morrow. They have seen too many people\ncome in with trumpets and flags and go out with hisses and rags to\nbe overawed by the deities of a day. They have seen Lincoln and\nthey are not to be frightened by his successors. Arthur took part\nto the extent of turning out men suspected of being friendly to\nthe defence. Arthur was in a difficult place. He was understood\nto be the friend of Dorsey and, of course, had to do something.\nNothing is more dangerous than a friend in power. He is obliged\nto show that he is impartial, and it always takes a good deal of\ninjustice to establish a reputation for fairness.\n\n_Question_. Was there any ground to expect aid or any different\naction on Arthur's part?\n\n_Answer_. All we expected was that Arthur would do as the soldier\nwanted the Lord to do at New Orleans--\"Just take neither side.\"\n\n_Question_. Why did not Brewster speak?\n\n_Answer_. The Court would not allow two closings. The Attorney-\nGeneral did not care to speak in the \"middle.\" He wished to close,\nand as he could not do that without putting Mr. Merrick out, he\nconcluded to remain silent. The defendants had no objection to\nhis speaking, but they objected to two closing arguments for the\nGovernment, and the Court decided they were right. Of course, I\nunderstand nothing about the way in which the attorneys for the\nprosecution arranged their difficulties. That was nothing to me;\nneither do I care what money they received--all that is for the\nnext Congress. It is not for me to speak of those questions.\n\n_Question_. Will there be other trials?\n\n_Answer_. I think not. It does not seem likely that other attorneys\nwill want to try, and the old ones have. My opinion is that we\nhave had the last of the Star Route trials. It was claimed that\nthe one tried was the strongest. If this is so the rest had better\nbe dismissed. I think the people are tired of the whole business.\nIt now seems probable that all the time for the next few years will\nbe taken up in telling about the case that was tried. I see that\nCook is telling about MacVeagh and James and Brewster and Bliss;\nWalsh is giving his opinion of Kellogg and Foster; Bliss is saying\na few words about Cook and Gibson; Brewster is telling what Bliss\ntold him; Gibson will have his say about Garfield and MacVeagh,\nand it now seems probable that we shall get the bottom facts about\nthe other jury--the actions of Messrs. Hoover, Bowen, Brewster\nCameron and others. Personally I have no interest in the business.\n\n_Question_. How does the next campaign look?\n\n_Answer_. The Republicans are making all the mistakes they can,\nand the only question now is, Can the Democrats make more? The\ntariff will be one of the great questions, and may be the only one\nexcept success. The Democrats are on both sides of the question.\nThey hate to give up the word \"only.\" Only for that word they\nmight have succeeded in 1880. If they can let \"only\" alone, and\nsay they want \"a tariff for revenue\" they will do better. The fact\nis the people are not in favor of free trade, neither do they want\na tariff high enough to crush a class, but they do want a tariff\nto raise a revenue and to protect our industries. I am for protection\nbecause it diversifies industries and develops brain--allows us to\nutilize all the muscle and brain we have. A party attacking the\nmanufacturing interests of this country will fail. There are too\nmany millions of dollars invested and too many millions of people\ninterested. The country is becoming alike interested in this\nquestion. We are no longer divided, as in slavery times, into\nmanufacturing and agricultural districts or sections. Georgia,\nAlabama, Tennessee, Louisiana and Texas have manufacturing interests.\nAnd the Western States believe in the protection of their industries.\nThe American people have a genius for manufacturing, a genius for\ninvention. We are not the greatest painters or sculptors or\nscientists, but we are without doubt the greatest inventors. If\nwe were all engaged in one business we would become stupid.\nAgricultural countries produce great wealth, but are never rich.\nTo get rich it is necessary to mix thought with labor. To raise\nthe raw material is a question of strength; to manufacture, to put\nit in useful and beautiful forms, is a question of mind. There is\na vast difference between the value of, say, a milestone and a\nstatue, and yet the labor expended in getting the raw material is\nabout the same. The point, after all, is this: First, we must\nhave revenue; second, shall we get this by direct taxation or shall\nwe tax imports and at the same time protect American labor? The\nparty that advocates reasonable protection will succeed.*\n\n[* At this point, with far away peals of thunder, the storm ceased,\nthe sun reappeared and a vault of heavenly blue swung overhead.\n\"Let us get out,\" said Colonel Ingersoll. Suiting the action to\nthe word, the Colonel struck out lustily for the beach, on which,\nhard as a rock and firm as flint, he soon planted his sturdy form.\nAnd as he lumbered across the sand to the side door of his comfortable\ncottage, some three hundred feet from the surf, the necessarily\nsuggested contrast between Ingersoll in court and Ingersoll in soaked\nflannels was illustrated with forcible comicality. Half an hour\nlater he was found in the cozy library puffing a high flavored Havana,\nand listening to home-made music of delicious quality. Ingersoll at\nhome is pleasant to contemplate. His sense of personal freedom is\nthere aptly pictured. Loving wife and affectionate daughters form,\nwith happy-faced and genial-hearted father, a model circle into which\nfriends deem it a privilege to enter and a pleasure to remain.\n\nContinuing the conversation, ]\n\n_Question_. In view of all this, where do you think the presidential\ncandidate will come from?\n\n_Answer_. From the West.\n\n_Question_. Why so?\n\n_Answer_. The South and East must compromise. Both can trust the\nWest. The West represents the whole country. There is no\nprovincialism in the West. The West is not old enough to have the\nprejudice of section; it is too prosperous to have hatred, too\ngreat to feel envy.\n\n_Question_. You do not seem to think that Arthur has a chance?\n\n_Answer_. No Vice-President was ever made President by the people.\nIt is natural to resent the accident that gave the Vice-President\nthe place. They regard the Vice-President as children do a\nstepmother. He is looked upon as temporary--a device to save the\nelection--a something to stop a gap--a lighter--a political raft.\nHe holds the horse until another rider is found. People do not\nwish death to suggest nominees for the presidency. I do not believe\nit will be possible for Mr. Arthur, no matter how well he acts, to\novercome this feeling. The people like a new man. There is some\nexcitement in the campaign, and besides they can have the luxury\nof believing that the new man is a great man.\n\n_Question_. Do you not think Arthur has grown and is a greater\nman than when he was elected?\n\n_Answer_. Arthur was placed in very trying circumstances, and, I\nthink, behaved with great discretion. But he was Vice-President,\nand that is a vice that people will not pardon.\n\n_Question_. How do you regard the situation in Ohio?\n\n_Answer_. I hear that the Republicans are attacking Hoadly, saying\nthat he is an Infidel. I know nothing about Mr. Hoadly's theological\nsentiments, but he certainly has the right to have and express his\nown views. If the Republicans of Ohio have made up their minds to\ndisfranchise the Liberals, the sooner they are beaten the better.\nWhy should the Republican party be so particular about religious\nbelief? Was Lincoln an orthodox Christian? Were the founders of\nthe party--the men who gave it heart and brain--conspicuous for\npiety? Were the abolitionists all believers in the inspiration of\nthe Bible? Is Judge Hoadly to be attacked because he exercises\nthe liberty that he gives to others? Has not the Republican party\ntrouble enough with the spirituous to let the spiritual alone? If\nthe religious issue is made, I hope that the party making it will\nbe defeated. I know nothing about the effect of the recent decision\nof the Supreme Court of Ohio. It is a very curious decision and\nseems to avoid the Constitution with neatness and despatch. The\ndecision seems to rest on the difference between the words tax and\nlicense--_I. e._, between allowing a man to sell whiskey for a tax\nof one hundred dollars or giving him a license to sell whiskey and\ncharging him one hundred dollars. In this, the difference is in\nthe law instead of the money. So far all the prohibitory legislation\non the liquor question has been a failure. Beer is victorious,\nand Gambrinus now has Olympus all to himself. On his side is the\n\"bail\"--\n\n_Question_. But who will win?\n\n_Answer_. The present indications are favorable to Judge Hoadly.\nIt is an off year. The Ohio leaders on one side are not in perfect\nharmony. The Germans are afraid, and they generally vote the\nDemocratic ticket when in doubt. The effort to enforce the Sunday\nlaw, to close the gardens, to make one day in the week desolate\nand doleful, will give the Republicans a great deal of hard work.\n\n_Question_. How about Illinois?\n\n_Answer_. Republican always. The Supreme Court of Illinois has\njust made a good decision. That Court decided that a contract made\non Sunday can be enforced. In other words, that Sunday is not holy\nenough to sanctify fraud. You can rely on a State with a Court\nlike that. There is very little rivalry in Illinois. I think that\nGeneral Oglesby will be the next Governor. He is one of the best\nmen in that State or any other.\n\n_Question_. What about Indiana?\n\n_Answer_. In that State I think General Gresham is the coming man.\nHe was a brave soldier, an able, honest judge, and he will fill\nwith honor any position he may be placed in. He is an excellent\nlawyer, and has as much will as was ever put in one man. McDonald\nis the most available man for the Democrats. He is safe and in\nevery respect reliable. He is without doubt the most popular man\nin his party.\n\n_Question_. Well, Colonel, what are you up to?\n\n_Answer_. Nothing. I am surrounded by sand, sea and sky. I listen\nto music, bathe in the surf and enjoy myself. I am wondering why\npeople take interest in politics; why anybody cares about anything;\nwhy everybody is not contented; why people want to climb the greased\npole of office and then dodge the brickbats of enemies and rivals;\nwhy any man wishes to be President, or a member of Congress, or in\nthe Cabinet, or do anything except to live with the ones he loves,\nand enjoy twenty-four hours every day. I wonder why all New York\ndoes not come to Long Beach and hear Schreiner's Band play the\nmusic of Wagner, the greatest of all composers. Finally, in the\nlanguage of Walt Whitman, \"I loaf and invite my soul.\"\n\n--_The Herald_, New York, July 1, 1883.\n\n\nTHE INTERVIEWER.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of newspaper interviewing?\n\n_Answer_. I believe that James Redpath claims to have invented\nthe \"interview.\" This system opens all doors, does away with\npolitical pretence, batters down the fortifications of dignity and\nofficial importance, pulls masks from solemn faces, compels everybody\nto show his hand. The interviewer seems to be omnipresent. He is\nthe next man after the accident. If a man should be blown up he\nwould likely fall on an interviewer. He is the universal interrogation\npoint. He asks questions for a living. If the interviewer is fair\nand honest he is useful, if the other way, he is still interesting.\nOn the whole, I regard the interviewer as an exceedingly important\nperson. But whether he is good or bad, he has come to stay. He\nwill interview us until we die, and then ask the \"friends\" a few\nquestions just to round the subject off.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the tendency of newspapers is at\npresent?\n\n_Answer_. The papers of the future, I think, will be \"news\" papers.\nThe editorial is getting shorter and shorter. The paragraphist is\ntaking the place of the heavy man. People rather form their own\nopinions from the facts. Of course good articles will always find\nreaders, but the dreary, doleful, philosophical dissertation has\nhad its day. The magazines will fall heir to such articles; then\nreligious weeklies will take them up, and then they will cease\naltogether.\n\n_Question_. Do you think the people lead the newspapers, or do\nthe newspapers lead them?\n\n_Answer_. The papers lead and are led. Most papers have for sale\nwhat people want to buy. As a rule the people who buy determine\nthe character of the thing sold. The reading public grow more\ndiscriminating every year, and, as a result, are less and less\n\"led.\" Violent papers--those that most freely attack private\ncharacter--are becoming less hurtful, because they are losing their\nown reputations. Evil tends to correct itself. People do not\nbelieve all they read, and there is a growing tendency to wait and\nhear from the other side.\n\n_Question_. Do newspapers to-day exercise as much influence as\nthey did twenty-five years ago?\n\n_Answer_. More, by the facts published, and less, by editorials.\nAs we become more civilized we are governed less by persons and\nmore by principles--less by faith and more by fact. The best of\nall leaders is the man who teaches people to lead themselves.\n\n_Question_. What would you define public opinion to be?\n\n_Answer_. First, in the widest sense, the opinion of the majority,\nincluding all kinds of people. Second, in a narrower sense, the\nopinion of the majority of the intellectual. Third, in actual\npractice, the opinion of those who make the most noise. Fourth,\npublic opinion is generally a mistake, which history records and\nposterity repeats.\n\n_Question_. What do you regard as the result of your lectures?\n\n_Answer_. In the last fifteen years I have delivered several\nhundred lectures. The world is growing more and more liberal every\nday. The man who is now considered orthodox, a few years ago would\nhave been denounced as an Infidel. People are thinking more and\nbelieving less. The pulpit is losing influence. In the light of\nmodern discovery the creeds are growing laughable. A theologian\nis an intellectual mummy, and excites attention only as a curiosity.\nSupernatural religion has outlived its usefulness. The miracles\nand wonders of the ancients will soon occupy the same tent. Jonah\nand Jack the Giant Killer, Joshua and Red Riding Hood, Noah and\nNeptune, will all go into the collection of the famous Mother\nHubbard.\n\n--_The Morning Journal_, New York, July 3, 1883.\n\n\nPOLITICS AND PROHIBITION.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the result in Ohio?\n\n_Answer_. In Ohio prohibition did more harm to the Republican\nchances than anything else. The Germans hold the Republicans\nresponsible. The German people believe in personal liberty. They\ncame to America to get it, and they regard any interference in the\nmanner or quantity of their food and drink as an invasion of personal\nrights. They claim they are not questions to be regulated by law,\nand I agree with them. I believe that people will finally learn\nto use spirits temperately and without abuse, but teetotalism is\nintemperance in itself, which breeds resistance, and without\ndestroying the rivulet of the appetite only dams it and makes it\nliable to break out at any moment. You can prevent a man from\nstealing by tying his hands behind him, but you cannot make him\nhonest. Prohibition breeds too many spies and informers, and makes\nneighbors afraid of each other. It kills hospitality. Again, the\nRepublican party in Ohio is endeavoring to have Sunday sanctified\nby the Legislature. The working people want freedom on Sunday.\nThey wish to enjoy themselves, and all laws now making to prevent\ninnocent amusement, beget a spirit of resentment among the common\npeople. I feel like resenting all such laws, and unless the\nRepublican party reforms in that particular, it ought to be defeated.\nI regard those two things as the principal causes of the Republican\nparty's defeat in Ohio.\n\n_Question_. Do you believe that the Democratic success was due to\nthe possession of reverse principles?\n\n_Answer_. I do not think that the Democratic party is in favor of\nliberty of thought and action in these two regards, from principle,\nbut rather from policy. Finding the course pursued by the Republicans\nunpopular, they adopted the opposite mode, and their success is a\nproof of the truth of what I contend. One great trouble in the\nRepublican party is bigotry. The pulpit is always trying to take\ncharge. The same thing exists in the Democratic party to a less\ndegree. The great trouble here is that its worst element--Catholicism\n--is endeavoring to get control.\n\n_Question_. What causes operated for the Republican success in\nIowa?\n\n_Answer_. Iowa is a prohibition State and almost any law on earth\nas against anything to drink, can be carried there. There are no\nlarge cities in the State and it is much easier to govern, but even\nthere the prohibition law is bound to be a failure. It will breed\ndeceit and hypocrisy, and in the long run the influence will be bad.\n\n_Question_. Will these two considerations cut any figure in the\npresidential campaign of 1884?\n\n_Answer_. The party, as a party, will have nothing to do with\nthese questions. These matters are local. Whether the Republicans\nare successful will depend more upon the country's prosperity. If\nthings should be generally in pretty good shape in 1884, the people\nwill allow the party to remain in power. Changes of administration\ndepend a great deal on the feeling of the country. If crops are\nbad and money is tight, the people blame the administration, whether\nit is responsible or not. If a ship going down the river strikes\na snag, or encounters a storm, a cry goes up against the captain.\nIt may not have been his fault, but he is blamed, all the same,\nand the passengers at once clamor for another captain. So it is\nin politics.\n\nIf nothing interferes between this and 1884, the Republican party\nwill continue. Otherwise it will be otherwise. But the principle\nof prosperity as applied to administrative change is strong. If\nthe panic of 1873 had occurred in 1876 there would have been no\noccasion for a commission to sit on Tilden. If it had struck us\nin 1880, Hancock would have been elected. Neither result would\nhave its occasion in the superiority of the Democratic party, but\nin the belief that the Republican party was in some vague way\nblamable for the condition of things, and there should be a change.\nThe Republican party is not as strong as it used to be. The old\nleaders have dropped out and no persons have yet taken their places.\nBlaine has dropped out, and is now writing a book. Conkling dropped\nout and is now practicing law, and so I might go on enumerating\nleaders who have severed their connection with the party and are\nno longer identified with it.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion regarding the Republican nomination\nfor President?\n\n_Answer_. My belief is that the Republicans will have to nominate\nsome man who has not been conspicuous in any faction, and upon whom\nall can unite. As a consequence he must be a new man. The Democrats\nmust do the same. They must nominate a new man. The old ones have\nbeen defeated so often that they start handicapped with their own\nhistories, and failure in the past is very poor raw material out\nof which to manufacture faith for the future. My own judgment is\nthat for the Democrats, McDonald is as strong a man as they can\nget. He is a man of most excellent sense and would be regarded as\na safe man. Tilden? He is dead, and he occupies no stronger place\nin the general heart than a graven image. With no magnetism, he\nhas nothing save his smartness to recommend him.\n\n_Question_. What are your views, generally expressed, on the\ntariff?\n\n_Answer_. There are a great many Democrats for protection and a\ngreat many for so-called free trade. I think the large majority\nof American people favor a reasonable tariff for raising our revenue\nand protecting our manufactures. I do not believe in tariff for\nrevenue only, but for revenue and protection. The Democrats would\nhave carried the country had they combined revenue and incidental\nprotection.\n\n_Question_. Are they rectifying the error now?\n\n_Answer_. I believe they are, already. They will do it next fall.\nIf they do not put it in their platform they will embody it in\ntheir speeches. I do not regard the tariff as a local, but a\nnational issue, notwithstanding Hancock inclined to the belief that\nit was the former.\n\n--_The Times_, Chicago, Illinois, October 13, 1883.\n\n\nTHE REPUBLICAN DEFEAT IN OHIO.\n\n_Question_. What is your explanation of the Republican disaster\nlast Tuesday?\n\n_Answer_. Too much praying and not enough paying, is my explanation\nof the Republican defeat.\n\n_First_. I think the attempt to pass the Prohibition Amendment\nlost thousands of votes. The people of this country, no matter\nhow much they may deplore the evils of intemperance, are not yet\nwilling to set on foot a system of spying into each other's affairs.\nThey know that prohibition would need thousands of officers--that\nit would breed informers and spies and peekers and skulkers by the\nhundred in every county. They know that laws do not of themselves\nmake good people. Good people make good laws. Americans do not\nwish to be temperate upon compulsion. The spirit that resents\ninterference in these matters is the same spirit that made and\nkeeps this a free country. All this crusade and prayer-meeting\nbusiness will not do in politics. We must depend upon the countless\ninfluences of civilization, upon science, art, music--upon the\nsoftening influences of kindness and argument. As life becomes\nvaluable people will take care of it. Temperance upon compulsion\ndestroys something more valuable than itself--liberty. I am for\nthe largest liberty in all things.\n\n_Second_. The Prohibitionists, in my opinion, traded with Democrats.\nThe Democrats were smart enough to know that prohibition could not\ncarry, and that they could safely trade. The Prohibitionists were\ninsane enough to vote for their worst enemies, just for the sake\nof polling a large vote for prohibition, and were fooled as usual.\n\n_Thirdly_. Certain personal hatreds of certain Republican politicians.\nThese were the causes which led to Republican defeat in Ohio.\n\n_Question_. Will it necessitate the nomination of an Ohio Republican\nnext year?\n\n_Answer_. I do not think so. Defeat is apt to breed dissension,\nand on account of that dissension the party will have to take a\nman from some other State. One politician will say to another,\n\"You did it,\" and another will reply, \"You are the man who ruined\nthe party.\" I think we have given Ohio her share; certainly she\nhas given us ours.\n\n_Question_. Will this reverse seriously affect Republican chances\nnext year?\n\n_Answer_. If the country is prosperous next year, if the crops\nare good, if prices are fair, if Pittsburg is covered with smoke,\nif the song of the spindle is heard in Lowell, if stocks are healthy,\nthe Republicans will again succeed. If the reverse as to crops\nand forges and spindles, then the Democrats will win. It is a\nquestion of \"chich-bugs,\" and floods and drouths.\n\n_Question_. Who, in your judgment, would be the strongest man the\nRepublicans could put up?\n\n_Answer_. Last year I thought General Sherman, but he has gone to\nMissouri, and now I am looking around. The first day I find out\nI will telegraph you.\n\n--_The Democrat_, Dayton, Ohio, October 15, 1883.\n\n\nTHE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the recent opinion of the Supreme\nCourt touching the rights of the colored man?\n\n_Answer_. I think it is all wrong. The intention of the framers\nof the amendment, by virtue of which the law was passed, was that\nno distinction should be made in inns, in hotels, cars, or in\ntheatres; in short, in public places, on account of color, race,\nor previous condition. The object of the men who framed that\namendment to the Constitution was perfectly clear, perfectly well\nknown, perfectly understood. They intended to secure, by an\namendment to the fundamental law, what had been fought for by\nhundreds of thousands of men. They knew that the institution of\nslavery had cost rebellion; the also knew that the spirit of caste\nwas only slavery in another form. They intended to kill that\nspirit. Their object was that the law, like the sun, should shine\nupon all, and that no man keeping a hotel, no corporation running\ncars, no person managing a theatre should make any distinction on\naccount of race or color. This amendment is above all praise. It\nwas the result of a moral exaltation, such as the world never before\nhad seen. There were years during the war, and after, when the\nAmerican people were simply sublime; when their generosity was\nboundless; when they were willing to endure any hardship to make\nthis an absolutely free country.\n\nThis decision of the Supreme Court puts the best people of the\ncolored race at the mercy of the meanest portion of the white race.\nIt allows a contemptible white man to trample upon a good colored\nman. I believe in drawing a line between good and bad, between\nclean and unclean, but I do not believe in drawing a color line\nwhich is as cruel as the lash of slavery.\n\nI am willing to be on an equality in all hotels, in all cars, in\nall theatres, with colored people. I make no distinction of race.\nThose make the distinction who cannot afford not to. If nature\nhas made no distinction between me and some others, I do not ask\nthe aid of the Legislature. I am willing to associate with all\ngood, clean persons, irrespective of complexion.\n\nThis decision virtually gives away one of the great principles for\nwhich the war was fought. It carries the doctrine of \"State Rights\"\nto the Democratic extreme, and renders necessary either another\namendment or a new court.\n\nI agree with Justice Harlan. He has taken a noble and patriotic\nstand. Kentucky rebukes Massachusetts! I am waiting with some\nimpatience--impatient because I anticipate a pleasure--for his\ndissenting opinion. Only a little while ago Justice Harlan took\na very noble stand on the Virginia Coupon cases, in which was\ninvolved the right of a State to repudiate its debts. Now he has\ntaken a stand in favor of the civil rights of the colored man; and\nin both instances I think he is right.\n\nThis decision may, after all, help the Republican party. A decision\nof the Supreme Court aroused the indignation of the entire North,\nand I hope the present decision will have a like effect. The good\npeople of this country will not be satisfied until every man beneath\nthe flag, without the slightest respect to his complexion, stands\non a perfect equality before the law with every other. Any government\nthat makes a distinction on account of color, is a disgrace to the\nage in which we live. The idea that a man like Frederick Douglass\ncan be denied entrance to a car, that the doors of a hotel can be\nshut in his face; that he may be prevented from entering a theatre;\nthe idea that there shall be some ignominious corner into which\nsuch a man can be thrown simply by a decision of the Supreme Court!\nThis idea is simply absurd.\n\n_Question_. What remains to be done now, and who is going to do it?\n\n_Answer_. For a good while people have been saying that the\nRepublican party has outlived its usefulness; that there is very\nlittle difference now between the parties; that there is hardly\nenough left to talk about. This decision opens the whole question.\nThis decision says to the Republican party, \"Your mission is not\nyet ended. This is not a free country. Our flag does not protect\nthe rights of a human being.\" This decision is the tap of a drum.\nThe old veterans will fall into line. This decision gives the\nissue for the next campaign, and it may be that the Supreme Court\nhas builded wiser than it knew. This is a greater question than\nthe tariff or free trade. It is a question of freedom, of human\nrights, of the sacredness of humanity.\n\nThe real Americans, the real believers in Liberty, will give three\ncheers for Judge Harlan.\n\nOne word more. The Government is bound to protect its citizens,\nnot only when they are away from home, but when they are under the\nflag. In time of war the Government has a right to draft any\ncitizen; to put that citizen in the line of battle, and compel him\nto fight for the nation. If the Government when imperiled has the\nright to compel a citizen, whether white or black, to defend with\nhis blood the flag, that citizen, when imperiled, has the right to\ndemand protection from the Nation. The Nation cannot then say,\n\"You must appeal to your State.\" If the citizen must appeal to\nthe State for redress, then the citizen should defend the State\nand not the General Government, and the doctrine of State Rights\nthen becomes complete.\n\n--_The National Republican_, Washington, D. C., October 17, 1883.\n\n\nJUSTICE HARLAN AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of Justice Harlan's dissenting\nopinion in the Civil Rights case?\n\n_Answer_. I have just read it and think it admirable in every\nrespect. It is unanswerable. He has given to words their natural\nmeaning. He has recognized the intention of the framers of the\nrecent amendments. There is nothing in this opinion that is\nstrained, insincere, or artificial. It is frank and manly. It is\nsolid masonry, without crack or flaw. He does not resort to legal\npaint or putty, or to verbal varnish or veneer. He states the\nposition of his brethren of the bench with perfect fairness, and\noverturns it with perfect ease. He has drawn an instructive parallel\nbetween the decisions of the olden time, upholding the power of\nCongress to deal with individuals in the interests of slavery, and\nthe power conferred on Congress by the recent amendments. He has\nshown by the old decisions, that when a duty is enjoined upon\nCongress, ability to perform it is given; that when a certain end\nis required, all necessary means are granted. He also shows that\nthe Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and of 1850, rested entirely upon\nthe implied power of Congress to enforce a master's rights; and\nthat power was once implied in favor of slavery against human\nrights, and implied from language shadowy, feeble and uncertain\nwhen compared with the language of the recent amendments. He has\nshown, too, that Congress exercised the utmost ingenuity in devising\nlaws to enforce the master's claim. Implication was held ample to\ndeprive a human being of his liberty, but to secure freedom, the\ndoctrine of implication is abandoned. As a foundation for wrong,\nimplication was their rock. As a foundation for right, it is now\nsand. Implied power then was sufficient to enslave, while power\nexpressly given is now impotent to protect.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the use he has made of the Dred\nScott decision?\n\n_Answer_. Well, I think he has shown conclusively that the present\ndecision, under the present circumstances, is far worse than the\nDred Scott decision was under the then circumstances. The Dred\nScott decision was a libel upon the best men of the Revolutionary\nperiod. That decision asserted broadly that our forefathers regarded\nthe negroes as having no rights which white men were bound to\nrespect; that the negroes were merely merchandise, and that that\nopinion was fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the\nwhite race, and that no one thought of disputing it. Yet Franklin\ncontended that slavery might be abolished under the preamble of\nthe Constitution. Thomas Jefferson said that if the slave should\nrise to cut the throat of his master, God had no attribute that\nwould side against the slave. Thomas Paine attacked the institution\nwith all the intensity and passion of his nature. John Adams\nregarded the institution with horror. So did every civilized man,\nSouth and North.\n\nJustice Harlan shows conclusively that the Thirteenth Amendment\nwas adopted in the light of the Dred Scott decision; that it\noverturned and destroyed, not simply the decision, but the reasoning\nupon which it was based; that it proceeded upon the ground that\nthe colored people had rights that white men were bound to respect,\nnot only, but that the Nation was bound to protect. He takes the\nground that the amendment was suggested by the condition of that\nrace, which had been declared by the Supreme Court of the United\nStates to have no rights which white men were bound to respect; that\nit was made to protect people whose rights had been invaded, and\nwhose strong arms had assisted in the overthrow of the Rebellion;\nthat it was made for the purpose of putting these men upon a legal\nauthority with white citizens.\n\nJustice Harland also shows that while legislation of Congress to\nenforce a master's right was upheld by implication, the rights of\nthe negro do not depend upon that doctrine; that the Thirteenth\nAmendment does not rest upon implication, or upon inference; that\nby its terms it places the power in Congress beyond the possibility\nof a doubt--conferring the power to enforce the amendment by\nappropriate legislation in express terms; and he also shows that\nthe Supreme Court has admitted that legislation for that purpose\nmay be direct and primary. Had not the power been given in express\nterms, Justice Harlan contends that the sweeping declaration that\nneither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist would by\nimplication confer the power. He also shows conclusively that,\nunder the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress has the right by appropriate\nlegislation to protect the colored people against the deprivation\nof any right on account of their race, and that Congress is not\nnecessarily restricted, under the Thirteenth Amendment, to legislation\nagainst slavery as an institution, but that power may be exerted\nto the extent of protecting the race from discrimination in respect\nto such rights as belong to freemen, where such discrimination is\nbased on race or color.\n\nIf Justice Harlan is wrong the amendments are left without force\nand Congress without power. No purpose can be assigned for their\nadoption. No object can be guessed that was to be accomplished.\nThey become words, so arranged that they sound like sense, but when\nexamined fall meaninglessly apart. Under the decision of the\nSupreme Court they are Quaker cannon--cloud forts--\"property\" for\npolitical stage scenery--coats of mail made of bronzed paper--\nshields of gilded pasteboard--swords of lath.\n\n_Question_. Do you wish to say anything as to the reasoning of\nJustice Harlan on the rights of colored people on railways, in inns\nand theatres?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, I do. That part of the opinion is especially\nstrong. He shows conclusively that a common carrier is in the\nexercise of a sort of public office and has public duties to perform,\nand that he cannot exonerate himself from the performance of these\nduties without the consent of the parties concerned. He also shows\nthat railroads are public highways, and that the railway company\nis the agent of the State, and that a railway, although built by\nprivate capital, is just as public in its nature as though constructed\nby the State itself. He shows that the railway is devoted to public\nuse, and subject to be controlled by the State for the public\nbenefit, and that for these reasons the colored man has the same\nrights upon the railway that he has upon the public highway.\n\nJustice Harlan shows that the same law is applicable to inns that\nis applicable to railways; that an inn-keeper is bound to take all\ntravelers if he can accommodate them; that he is not to select his\nguests; that he has not right to say to one \"you may come in,\" and\nto another \"you shall not;\" that every one who conducts himself in\na proper manner has a right to be received. He shows conclusively\nthat an inn-keeper is a sort of public servant; that he is in the\nexercise of a _quasi_ public employment, that he is given special\nprivileges, and charged with duties of a public character.\n\nAs to theatres, I think his argument most happy. It is this:\nTheatres are licensed by law. The authority to maintain them comes\nfrom the public. The colored race being a part of the public,\nrepresenting the power granting the license, why should the colored\npeople license a manager to open his doors to the white man and\nshut them in the face of the black man? Why should they be compelled\nto license that which they are not permitted to enjoy? Justice\nHarlan shows that Congress has the power to prevent discrimination\non account of race or color on railways, at inns, and in places of\npublic amusements, and has this power under the Thirteenth\nAmendment.\n\nIn discussing the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Harlan points out\nthat a prohibition upon a State is not a power in Congress or the\nNational Government, but is simply a denial of power to the State;\nthat such was the Constitution before the Fourteenth Amendment.\nHe shows, however, that the Fourteenth Amendment presents the first\ninstance in our history of the investiture of Congress with\naffirmative power by legislation to enforce an express prohibition\nupon the States. This is an important point. It is stated with\ngreat clearness, and defended with great force. He shows that the\nfirst clause of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is\nof a distinctly affirmative character, and that Congress would have\nhad the power to legislate directly as to that section simply by\nimplication, but that as to that as well as the express prohibitions\nupon the States, express power to legislate was given.\n\nThere is one other point made by Justice Harlan which transfixes\nas with a spear the decision of the Court. It is this: As soon\nas the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were adopted the colored\ncitizen was entitled to the protection of section two, article\nfour, namely: \"The citizens of each State shall be entitled to\nall the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.\"\nNow, suppose a colored citizen of Mississippi moves to Tennessee.\nThen, under the section last quoted, he would immediately become\ninvested with all the privileges and immunities of a white citizen\nof Tennessee. Although denied these privileges and immunities in\nthe State from which he emigrated, in the State to which he immigrates\nhe could not be discriminated against on account of his color under\nthe second section of the fourth article. Now, is it possible that\nhe gets additional rights by immigration? Is it possible that the\nGeneral Government is under a greater obligation to protect him in\na State of which he is not a citizen than in a State of which he\nis a citizen? Must he leave home for protection, and after he has\nlived long enough in the State to which he immigrates to become a\ncitizen there, must he again move in order to protect his rights?\nMust one adopt the doctrine of peripatetic protection--the doctrine\nthat the Constitution is good only _in transitu_, and that when\nthe citizen stops, the Constitution goes on and leaves him without\nprotection?\n\nJustice Harlan shows that Congress had the right to legislate\ndirectly while that power was only implied, but that the moment\nthis power was conferred in express terms, then according to the\nSupreme Court, it was lost.\n\nThere is another splendid definition given by Justice Harlan--a\nline drawn as broad as the Mississippi. It is the distinction\nbetween the rights conferred by a State and rights conferred by\nthe Nation. Admitting that many rights conferred by a State cannot\nbe enforced directly by Congress, Justice Harlan shows that rights\ngranted by the Nation to an individual may be protected by direct\nlegislation. This is a distinction that should not be forgotten,\nand it is a definition clear and perfect.\n\nJustice Harlan has shown that the Supreme Court failed to take into\nconsideration the intention of the framers of the amendment; failed\nto see that the powers of Congress were given by express terms and\ndid not rest upon implication; failed to see that the Thirteenth\nAmendment was broad enough to cover the Civil Rights Act; failed\nto see that under the three amendments rights and privileges were\nconferred by the Nation on citizens of the several States, and that\nthese rights are under the perpetual protection of the General\nGovernment, and that for their enforcement Congress has the right\nto legislate directly; failed to see that all implications are now\nin favor of liberty instead of slavery; failed to comprehend that\nwe have a new nation with a new foundation, with different objects,\nends, and aims, for the attainment of which we use different means\nand have been clothed with greater powers; failed to see that the\nRepublic changed front; failed to appreciate the real reasons for\nthe adoption of the amendments, and failed to understand that the\nCivil Rights Act was passed in order that a citizen of the United\nStates might appeal from local prejudice to national justice.\n\nJustice Harlan shows that it was the object to accomplish for the\nblack man what had been accomplished for the white man--that is,\nto protect all their rights as free men and citizens; and that the\none underlying purpose of the amendments and of the congressional\nlegislation has been to clothe the black race with all the rights\nof citizenship, and to compel a recognition of their rights by\ncitizens and States--that the object was to do away with class\ntyranny, the meanest and basest form of oppression.\n\nIf Justice Harlan was wrong in his position, then, it may truthfully\nbe said of the three amendments that:\n\n \"The law hath bubbles as the water has,\n And these are of them.\"\n\nThe decision of the Supreme Court denies the protection of the\nNation to the citizens of the Nation. That decision has already\nborne fruit--the massacre at Danville. The protection of the Nation\nhaving been withdrawn, the colored man was left to the mercy of\nlocal prejudices and hatreds. He is without appeal, without redress.\nThe Supreme Court tells him that he must depend upon his enemies\nfor justice.\n\n_Question_. You seem to agree with all that Justice Harlan has\nsaid, and to have the greatest admiration for his opinion?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, a man rises from reading this dissenting opinion\nrefreshed, invigorated, and strengthened. It is a mental and moral\ntonic. It was produced after a clear head had held conference with\na good heart. It will furnish a perfectly clear plank, without\nknot or wind-shake, for the next Republican platform. It is written\nin good plain English, and ornamented with good sound sense. The\naverage man can and will understand its every word. There is no\nsubterfuge in it.\n\nEach position is taken in the open field. There is no resort to\nquibbles or technicalities--no hiding. Nothing is secreted in the\nsleeve--no searching for blind paths--no stooping and looking for\nancient tracks, grass-grown and dim. Each argument travels the\nhighway--\"the big road.\" It is logical. The facts and conclusions\nagree, and fall naturally into line of battle. It is sincere and\ncandid--unpretentious and unanswerable. It is a grand defence of\nhuman rights--a brave and manly plea for universal justice. It\nleaves the decision of the Supreme Court without argument, without\nreason, and without excuse. Such an exhibition of independence,\ncourage and ability has won for Justice Harlan the respect and\nadmiration of \"both sides,\" and places him in the front rank of\nconstitutional lawyers.\n\n--_The Inter-Ocean_, Chicago, Illinois, November 29, 1883.\n\n\nPOLITICS AND THEOLOGY.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of Brewster's administration?\n\n_Answer_. I hardly think I ought to say much about the administration\nof Mr. Brewster. Of course many things have been done that I\nthought, and still think, extremely bad; but whether Mr. Brewster\nwas responsible for the things done, or not, I do not pretend to\nsay. When he was appointed to his present position, there was\ngreat excitement in the country about the Star Route cases, and\nMr. Brewster was expected to prosecute everybody and everything to\nthe extent of the law; in fact, I believe he was appointed by reason\nof having made such a promise. At that time there were hundreds\nof people interested in exaggerating all the facts connected with\nthe Star Route cases, and when there were no facts to be exaggerated,\nthey made some, and exaggerated them afterward. It may be that\nthe Attorney-General was misled, and he really supposed that all\nhe heard was true. My objection to the administration of the\nDepartment of Justice is, that a resort was had to spies and\ndetectives. The battle was not fought in the open field. Influences\nwere brought to bear. Nearly all departments of the Government\nwere enlisted. Everything was done to create a public opinion in\nfavor of the prosecution. Everything was done that the cases might\nbe decided on prejudice instead of upon facts.\n\nEverything was done to demoralize, frighten and overawe judges,\nwitnesses and jurors. I do not pretend to say who was responsible,\npossibly I am not an impartial judge. I was deeply interested at\nthe time, and felt all of these things, rather than reasoned about\nthem.\n\nPossibly I cannot give a perfectly unbiased opinion. Personally,\nI have no feeling now upon the subject.\n\nThe Department of Justice, in spite of its methods, did not succeed.\nThat was enough for me. I think, however, when the country knows\nthe facts, that the people will not approve of what was done. I\ndo not believe in trying cases in the newspapers before they are\nsubmitted to jurors. That is a little too early. Neither do I\nbelieve in trying them in the newspapers after the verdicts have\nbeen rendered. That is a little too late.\n\n_Question_. What are Mr. Blaine's chances for the presidency?\n\n_Answer_. My understanding is that Mr. Blaine is not a candidate\nfor the nomination; that he does not wish his name to be used in\nthat connection. He ought to have been nominated in 1876, and if\nhe were a candidate, he would probably have the largest following;\nbut my understanding is, that he does not, in any event, wish to\nbe a candidate. He is a man perfectly familiar with the politics\nof this country, knows its history by heart, and is in every respect\nprobably as well qualified to act as its Chief Magistrate as any\nman in the nation. He is a man of ideas, of action, and has positive\nqualities. He would not wait for something to turn up, and things\nwould not have to wait long for him to turn them up.\n\n_Question_. Who do you think will be nominated at Chicago?\n\n_Answer_. Of course I have not the slightest idea who will be\nnominated. I may have an opinion as to who ought to be nominated,\nand yet I may be greatly mistaken in that opinion. There are\nhundreds of men in the Republican party, any one of whom, if elected,\nwould make a good, substantial President, and there are many\nthousands of men about whom I know nothing, any one of whom would\nin all probability make a good President. We do not want any man\nto govern this country. This country governs itself. We want a\nPresident who will honestly and faithfully execute the laws, who\nwill appoint postmasters and do the requisite amount of handshaking\non public occasions, and we have thousands of men who can discharge\nthe duties of that position. Washington is probably the worst\nplace to find out anything definite upon the subject of presidential\nbooms. I have thought for a long time that one of the most valuable\nmen in the country was General Sherman. Everybody knows who and\nwhat he is. He has one great advantage--he is a frank and outspoken\nman. He has opinions and he never hesitates about letting them be\nknown. There is considerable talk about Judge Harlan. His dissenting\nopinion in the Civil Rights case has made every colored man his\nfriend, and I think it will take considerable public patronage to\nprevent a good many delegates from the Southern States voting for\nhim.\n\n_Question_. What are your present views on theology?\n\n_Answer_. Well, I think my views have not undergone any change\nthat I know of. I still insist that observation, reason and\nexperience are the things to be depended upon in this world. I\nstill deny the existence of the supernatural. I still insist that\nnobody can be good for you, or bad for you; that you cannot be\npunished for the crimes of others, nor rewarded for their virtues.\nI still insist that the consequences of good actions are always\ngood, and those of bad actions always bad. I insist that nobody\ncan plant thistles and gather figs; neither can they plant figs\nand gather thistles. I still deny that a finite being can commit\nan infinite sin; but I continue to insist that a God who would\npunish a man forever is an infinite tyrant. My views have undergone\nno change, except that the evidence of that truth constantly\nincreases, and the dogmas of the church look, if possible, a little\nabsurder every day. Theology, you know, is not a science. It\nstops at the grave; and faith is the end of theology. Ministers\nhave not even the advantage of the doctors; the doctors sometimes\ncan tell by a post-mortem examination whether they killed the man\nor not; but by cutting a man open after he is dead, the wisest\ntheologians cannot tell what has become of his soul, and whether\nit was injured or helped by a belief in the inspiration of the\nScriptures. Theology depends on assertion for evidence, and on\nfaith for disciples.\n\n--_The Tribune_, Denver, Colorado, January 17, 1886.\n\n\nMORALITY AND IMMORTALITY.\n\n_Question_. I see that the clergy are still making all kinds of\ncharges against you and your doctrines.\n\n_Answer_. Yes. Some of the charges are true and some of them are\nnot. I suppose that they intend to get in the vicinity of veracity,\nand are probably stating my belief as it is honestly misunderstood\nby them. I admit that I have said and that I still think that\nChristianity is a blunder. But the question arises, What is\nChristianity? I do not mean, when I say that Christianity is a\nblunder, that the morality taught by Christians is a mistake.\nMorality is not distinctively Christian, any more than it is\nMohammedan. Morality is human, it belongs to no ism, and does not\ndepend for a foundation upon the supernatural, or upon any book,\nor upon any creed. Morality is itself a foundation. When I say\nthat Christianity is a blunder, I mean all those things distinctively\nChristian are blunders. It is a blunder to say that an infinite\nbeing lived in Palestine, learned the carpenter's trade, raised\nthe dead, cured the blind, and cast out devils, and that this God\nwas finally assassinated by the Jews. This is absurd. All these\nstatements are blunders, if not worse. I do not believe that Christ\never claimed that he was of supernatural origin, or that he wrought\nmiracles, or that he would rise from the dead. If he did, he was\nmistaken--honestly mistaken, perhaps, but still mistaken.\n\nThe morality inculcated by Mohammed is good. The immorality\ninculcated by Mohammed is bad. If Mohammed was a prophet of God,\nit does not make the morality he taught any better, neither does\nit make the immorality any better or any worse.\n\nBy this time the whole world ought to know that morality does not\nneed to go into partnership with miracles. Morality is based upon\nthe experience of mankind. It does not have to learn of inspired\nwriters, or of gods, or of divine persons. It is a lesson that\nthe whole human race has been learning and learning from experience.\nHe who upholds, or believes in, or teaches, the miraculous, commits\na blunder.\n\nNow, what is morality? Morality is the best thing to do under the\ncircumstances. Anything that tends to the happiness of mankind is\nmoral. Anything that tends to unhappiness is immoral. We apply\nto the moral world rules and regulations as we do in the physical\nworld. The man who does justice, or tries to do so--who is honest\nand kind and gives to others what he claims for himself, is a moral\nman. All actions must be judged by their consequences. Where the\nconsequences are good, the actions are good. Where the consequences\nare bad, the actions are bad; and all consequences are learned from\nexperience. After we have had a certain amount of experience, we\nthen reason from analogy. We apply our logic and say that a certain\ncourse will bring destruction, another course will bring happiness.\nThere is nothing inspired about morality--nothing supernatural.\nIt is simply good, common sense, going hand in hand with kindness.\n\nMorality is capable of being demonstrated. You do not have to take\nthe word of anybody; you can observe and examine for yourself.\nLarceny is the enemy of industry, and industry is good; therefore\nlarceny is immoral. The family is the unit of good government;\nanything that tends to destroy the family is immoral. Honesty is\nthe mother of confidence; it united, combines and solidifies society.\nDishonesty is disintegration; it destroys confidence; it brings\nsocial chaos; it is therefore immoral.\n\nI also admit that I regard the Mosaic account of the creation as\nan absurdity--as a series of blunders. Probably Moses did the best\nhe could. He had never talked with Humboldt or Laplace. He knew\nnothing of geology or astronomy. He had not the slightest suspicion\nof Kepler's Three Laws. He never saw a copy of Newton's Principia.\nTaking all these things into consideration, I think Moses did the\nbest he could.\n\nThe religious people say now that \"days\" did not mean days. Of\nthese \"six days\" they make a kind of telescope, which you can push\nin or draw out at pleasure. If the geologists find that more time\nwas necessary they will stretch them out. Should it turn out that\nthe world is not quite as old as some think, they will push them\nup. The \"six days\" can now be made to suit any period of time.\nNothing can be more childish, frivolous or contradictory.\n\nOnly a few years ago the Mosaic account was considered true, and\nMoses was regarded as a scientific authority. Geology and astronomy\nwere measured by the Mosaic standard. The opposite is now true.\nThe church has changed; and instead of trying to prove that modern\nastronomy and geology are false, because they do not agree with\nMoses, it is now endeavoring to prove that the account by Moses is\ntrue, because it agrees with modern astronomy and geology. In\nother words, the standard has changed; the ancient is measured by\nthe modern, and where the literal statement in the Bible does not\nagree with modern discoveries, they do not change the discoveries,\nbut give new meanings to the old account. We are not now endeavoring\nto reconcile science with the Bible, but to reconcile the Bible\nwith science.\n\nNothing shows the extent of modern doubt more than the eagerness\nwith which Christians search for some new testimony. Luther answered\nCopernicus with a passage of Scripture, and he answered him to the\nsatisfaction of orthodox ignorance.\n\nThe truth is that the Jews adopted the stories of Creation, the\nGarden of Eden, Forbidden Fruit, and the Fall of Man. They were\ntold by older barbarians than they, and the Jews gave them to us.\n\nI never said that the Bible is all bad. I have always admitted\nthat there are many good and splendid things in the Jewish Scriptures,\nand many bad things. What I insist is that we should have the\ncourage and the common sense to accept the good, and throw away\nthe bad. Evil is not good because found in good company, and truth\nis still truth, even when surrounded by falsehood.\n\n_Question_. I see that you are frequently charged with disrespect\ntoward your parents--with lack of reverence for the opinions of\nyour father?\n\n_Answer_. I think my father and mother upon several religious\nquestions were mistaken. In fact, I have no doubt that they were;\nbut I never felt under the slightest obligation to defend my father's\nmistakes. No one can defend what he thinks is a mistake, without\nbeing dishonest. That is a poor way to show respect for parents.\nEvery Protestant clergyman asks men and women who had Catholic\nparents to desert the church in which they were raised. They have\nno hesitation in saying to these people that their fathers and\nmothers were mistaken, and that they were deceived by priests and\npopes.\n\nThe probability is that we are all mistaken about almost everything;\nbut it is impossible for a man to be respectable enough to make a\nmistake respectable. There is nothing remarkably holy in a blunder,\nor praiseworthy in stubbing the toe of the mind against a mistake.\nIs it possible that logic stands paralyzed in the presence of\npaternal absurdity? Suppose a man has a bad father; is he bound\nby the bad father's opinion, when he is satisfied that the opinion\nis wrong? How good does a father have to be, in order to put his\nson under obligation to defend his blunders? Suppose the father\nthinks one way, and the mother the other; what are the children to\ndo? Suppose the father changes his opinion; what then? Suppose\nthe father thinks one way and the mother the other, and they both\ndie when the boy is young; and the boy is bound out; whose mistakes\nis he then bound to follow? Our missionaries tell the barbarian\nboy that his parents are mistaken, that they know nothing, and that\nthe wooden god is nothing but a senseless idol. They do not hesitate\nto tell this boy that his mother believed lies, and hugged, it may\nbe to her dying heart, a miserable delusion. Why should a barbarian\nboy cast reproach upon his parents?\n\nI believe it was Christ who commanded his disciples to leave father\nand mother; not only to leave them, but to desert them; and not\nonly to desert father and mother, but to desert wives and children.\nIt is also told of Christ that he said that he came to set fathers\nagainst children and children against fathers. Strange that a\nfollower of his should object to a man differing in opinion from\nhis parents! The truth is, logic knows nothing of consanguinity;\nfacts have no relatives but other facts; and these facts do not\ndepend upon the character of the person who states them, or upon\nthe position of the discoverer. And this leads me to another branch\nof the same subject.\n\nThe ministers are continually saying that certain great men--kings,\npresidents, statesmen, millionaires--have believed in the inspiration\nof the Bible. Only the other day, I read a sermon in which Carlyle\nwas quoted as having said that \"the Bible is a noble book.\" That\nall may be and yet the book not be inspired. But what is the simple\nassertion of Thomas Carlyle worth? If the assertion is based upon\na reason, then it is worth simply the value of the reason, and the\nreason is worth just as much without the assertion, but without\nthe reason the assertion is worthless. Thomas Carlyle thought,\nand solemnly put the thought in print, that his father was a greater\nman than Robert Burns. His opinion did Burns no harm, and his\nfather no good. Since reading his \"Reminiscences,\" I have no great\nopinion of his opinion. In some respects he was undoubtedly a\ngreat man, in others a small one.\n\nNo man should give the opinion of another as authority and in place\nof fact and reason, unless he is willing to take all the opinions\nof that man. An opinion is worth the warp and woof of fact and\nlogic in it and no more. A man cannot add to the truthfulness of\ntruth. In the ordinary business of life, we give certain weight\nto the opinion of specialists--to the opinion of doctors, lawyers,\nscientists, and historians. Within the domain of the natural, we\ntake the opinions of our fellow-men; but we do not feel that we\nare absolutely bound by these opinions. We have the right to re-\nexamine them, and if we find they are wrong we feel at liberty to\nsay so. A doctor is supposed to have studied medicine; to have\nexamined and explored the questions entering into his profession;\nbut we know that doctors are often mistaken. We also know that\nthere are many schools of medicine; that these schools disagree\nwith one another, and that the doctors of each school disagree with\none another. We also know that many patients die, and so far as\nwe know, these patients have not come back to tell us whether the\ndoctors killed them or not. The grave generally prevents a\ndemonstration. It is exactly the same with the clergy. They have\nmany schools of theology, all despising each other. Probably no\ntwo members of the same church exactly agree. They cannot demonstrate\ntheir propositions, because between the premise and the logical\nconclusion or demonstration, stands the tomb. A gravestone marks\nthe end of theology. In some cases, the physician can, by a post-\nmortem examination, find what killed the patient, but there is no\ntheological post-mortem. It is impossible, by cutting a body open,\nto find where the soul has gone; or whether baptism, or the lack\nof it, had the slightest effect upon final destiny. The church,\nknowing that there are no facts beyond the coffin, relies upon\nopinions, assertions and theories. For this reason it is always\nasking alms of distinguished people. Some President wishes to be\nre-elected, and thereupon speaks about the Bible as \"the corner-\nstone of American Liberty.\" This sentence is a mouth large enough\nto swallow any church, and from that time forward the religious\npeople will be citing that remark of the politician to substantiate\nthe inspiration of the Scriptures.\n\nThe man who accepts opinions because they have been entertained by\ndistinguished people, is a mental snob. When we blindly follow\nauthority we are serfs. When our reason is convinced we are freemen.\nIt is rare to find a fully rounded and complete man. A man may be\na great doctor and a poor mechanic, a successful politician and a\npoor metaphysician, a poor painter and a good poet.\n\nThe rarest thing in the world is a logician--that is to say, a man\nwho knows the value of a fact. It is hard to find mental proportion.\nTheories may be established by names, but facts cannot be demonstrated\nin that way. Very small people are sometimes right, and very great\npeople are sometimes wrong. Ministers are sometimes right.\n\nIn all the philosophies of the world there are undoubtedly\ncontradictions and absurdities. The mind of man is imperfect and\nperfect results are impossible. A mirror, in order to reflect a\nperfect picture, a perfect copy, must itself be perfect. The mind\nis a little piece of intellectual glass the surface of which is\nnot true, not perfect. In consequence of this, every image is more\nor less distorted. The less we know, the more we imagine that we\ncan know; but the more we know, the smaller seems the sum of\nknowledge. The less we know, the more we expect, the more we hope\nfor, and the more seems within the range of probability. The less\nwe have, the more we want. There never was a banquet magnificent\nenough to gratify the imagination of a beggar. The moment people\nbegin to reason about what they call the supernatural, they seem\nto lose their minds. People seem to have lost their reason in\nreligious matters, very much as the dodo is said to have lost its\nwings; they have been restricted to a little inspired island, and\nby disuse their reason has been lost.\n\nIn the Jewish Scriptures you will find simply the literature of\nthe Jews. You will find there the tears and anguish of captivity,\npatriotic fervor, national aspiration, proverbs for the conduct of\ndaily life, laws, regulations, customs, legends, philosophy and\nfolly. These books, of course, were not written by one man, but\nby many authors. They do not agree, having been written in different\ncenturies, under different circumstances. I see that Mr. Beecher\nhas at last concluded that the Old Testament does not teach the\ndoctrine of immortality. He admits that from Mount Sinai came no\nhope for the dead. It is very curious that we find in the Old\nTestament no funeral service. No one stands by the dead and predicts\nanother life. In the Old Testament there is no promise of another\nworld. I have sometimes thought that while the Jews were slaves\nin Egypt, the doctrine of immortality became hateful. They built\nso many tombs; they carried so many burdens to commemorate the\ndead; the saw a nation waste its wealth to adorn its graves, and\nleave the living naked to embalm the dead, that they concluded the\ndoctrine was a curse and never should be taught.\n\n_Question_. If the Jews did not believe in immortality, how do\nyou account for the allusions made to witches and wizards and things\nof that nature?\n\n_Answer_. When Saul visited the Witch of Endor, and she, by some\nmagic spell, called up Samuel, the prophet said: \"Why hast thou\ndisquieted me, to call me up?\" He did not say: Why have you called\nme from another world? The idea expressed is: I was asleep, why\ndid you disturb that repose which should be eternal? The ancient\nJews believed in witches and wizards and familiar spirits; but they\ndid not seem to think that these spirits had once been men and\nwomen. They spoke to them as belonging to another world, a world\nto which man would never find his way. At that time it was supposed\nthat Jehovah and his angels lived in the sky, but that region was\nnot spoken of as the destined home of man. Jacob saw angels going\nup and down the ladder, but not the spirits of those he had known.\nThere are two cases where it seems that men were good enough to be\nadopted into the family of heaven. Enoch was translated, and Elijah\nwas taken up in a chariot of fire. As it is exceedingly cold at\nthe height of a few miles, it is easy to see why the chariot was\nof fire, and the same fact explains another circumstance--the\ndropping of the mantle. The Jews probably believed in the existence\nof other beings--that is to say, in angels and gods and evil spirits\n--and that they lived in other worlds--but there is no passage\nshowing that they believed in what we call the immortality of the\nsoul.\n\n_Question_. Do you believe, or disbelieve, in the immortality of\nthe soul?\n\n_Answer_. I neither assert nor deny; I simply admit that I do not\nknow. Upon that subject I am absolutely without evidence. This\nis the only world that I was ever in. There may be spirits, but\nI have never met them, and do not know that I would recognize a\nspirit. I can form no conception of what is called spiritual life.\nIt may be that I am deficient in imagination, and that ministers\nhave no difficulty in conceiving of angels and disembodied souls.\nI have not the slightest idea how a soul looks, what shape it is,\nhow it goes from one place to another, whether it walks or flies.\nI cannot conceive of the immaterial having form; neither can I\nconceive of anything existing without form, and yet the fact that\nI cannot conceive of a thing does not prove that the thing does\nnot exist, but it does prove that I know nothing about it, and that\nbeing so, I ought to admit my ignorance. I am satisfied of a good\nmany things that I do not know. I am satisfied that there is no\nplace of eternal torment. I am satisfied that that doctrine has\ndone more harm than all the religious ideas, other than that, have\ndone good. I do not want to take any hope from any human heart.\nI have no objection to people believing in any good thing--no\nobjection to their expecting a crown of infinite joy for every\nhuman being. Many people imagine that immortality must be an\ninfinite good; but, after all, there is something terrible in the\nidea of endless life. Think of a river that never reaches the sea;\nof a bird that never folds its wings; of a journey that never ends.\nMost people find great pleasure in thinking about and in believing\nin another world. There the prisoner expects to be free; the slave\nto find liberty; the poor man expects wealth; the rich man happiness;\nthe peasant dreams of power, and the king of contentment. They\nexpect to find there what they lack here. I do not wish to destroy\nthese dreams. I am endeavoring to put out the everlasting fires.\nA good, cool grave is infinitely better than the fiery furnace of\nJehovah's wrath. Eternal sleep is better than eternal pain. For\nmy part I would rather be annihilated than to be an angel, with\nall the privileges of heaven, and yet have within my breast a heart\nthat could be happy while those who had loved me in this world were\nin perdition.\n\nI most sincerely hope that the future life will fulfill all splendid\ndreams; but in the religion of the present day there is no joy.\nNothing is so devoid of comfort, when bending above our dead, as\nthe assertions of theology unsupported by a single fact. The\npromises are so far away, and the dead are so near. From words\nspoken eighteen centuries ago, the echoes are so weak, and the\nsounds of the clods on the coffin are so loud. Above the grave\nwhat can the honest minister say? If the dead were not a Christian,\nwhat then? What comfort can the orthodox clergyman give to the\nwidow of an honest unbeliever? If Christianity is true, the other\nworld will be worse than this. There the many will be miserable,\nonly the few happy; there the miserable cannot better their condition;\nthe future has no star of hope, and in the east of eternity there\ncan never be a dawn.\n\n_Question_. If you take away the idea of eternal punishment, how\ndo you propose to restrain men; in what way will you influence\nconduct for good?\n\n_Answer_. Well, the trouble with religion is that it postpones\npunishment and reward to another world. Wrong is wrong, because\nit breeds unhappiness. Right is right, because it tends to the\nhappiness of man. These facts are the basis of what I call the\nreligion of this world. When a man does wrong, the consequences\nfollow, and between the cause and effect, a Redeemer cannot step.\nForgiveness cannot form a breastwork between act and consequence.\n\nThere should be a religion of the body--a religion that will prevent\ndeformity, that will refuse to multiply insanity, that will not\npropagate disease--a religion that is judged by its consequences in\nthis world. Orthodox Christianity has taught, and still teaches,\nthat in this world the difference between the good and the bad is\nthat the bad enjoy themselves, while the good carry the cross of\nvirtue with bleeding brows bound and pierced with the thorns of\nhonesty and kindness. All this, in my judgment, is immoral. The\nman who does wrong carries a cross. There is no world, no star,\nin which the result of wrong is real happiness. There is no world,\nno star, in which the result of doing right is unhappiness. Virtue\nand vice must be the same everywhere.\n\nVice must be vice everywhere, because its consequences are evil;\nand virtue must be virtue everywhere, because its consequences are\ngood. There can be no such thing as forgiveness. These facts are\nthe only restraining influences possible--the innocent man cannot\nsuffer for the guilty and satisfy the law.\n\n_Question_. How do you answer the argument, or the fact, that the\nchurch is constantly increasing, and that there are now four hundred\nmillions of Christians?\n\n_Answer_. That is what I call the argument of numbers. If that\nargument is good now, it was always good. If Christians were at\nany time in the minority, then, according to this argument,\nChristianity was wrong. Every religion that has succeeded has\nappealed to the argument of numbers. There was a time when Buddhism\nwas in a majority. Buddha not only had, but has more followers\nthen Christ. Success is not a demonstration. Mohammed was a\nsuccess, and a success from the commencement. Upon a thousand\nfields he was victor. Of the scattered tribes of the desert, he\nmade a nation, and this nation took the fairest part of Europe from\nthe followers of the cross. In the history of the world, the\nsuccess of Mohammed is unparalleled, but this success does not\nestablish that he was the prophet of God.\n\nNow, it is claimed that there are some four hundred millions of\nChristians. To make that total I am counted as a Christian; I am\none of the fifty or sixty millions of Christians in the United\nStates--excluding Indians, not taxed. By this census report, we\nare all going to heaven--we are all orthodox. At the last great\nday we can refer with confidence to the ponderous volumes containing\nthe statistics of the United States. As a matter of fact, how many\nChristians are there in the United States--how many believers in\nthe inspiration of the Scriptures--how many real followers of\nChrist? I will not pretend to give the number, but I will venture\nto say that there are not fifty millions. How many in England?\nWhere are the four hundred millions found? To make this immense\nnumber, they have counted all the Heretics, all the Catholics, all\nthe Jews, Spiritualists, Universalists and Unitarians, all the\nbabes, all the idiotic and insane, all the Infidels, all the\nscientists, all the unbelievers. As a matter of fact, they have\nno right to count any except the orthodox members of the orthodox\nchurches. There may be more \"members\" now than formerly, and this\nincrease of members is due to a decrease of religion. Thousands\nof members are only nominal Christians, wearing the old uniform\nsimply because they do not wish to be charged with desertion. The\nchurch, too, is a kind of social institution, a club with a creed\ninstead of by-laws, and the creed is never defended unless attacked\nby an outsider. No objection is made to the minister because he\nis liberal, if he says nothing about it in his pulpit. A man like\nMr. Beecher draws a congregation, not because he is a Christian,\nbut because he is a genius; not because he is orthodox, but because\nhe has something to say. He is an intellectual athlete. He is\nfull of pathos and poetry. He has more description than divinity;\nmore charity than creed, and altogether more common sense than\ntheology. For these reasons thousands of people love to hear him.\nOn the other hand, there are many people who have a morbid desire\nfor the abnormal--for intellectual deformities--for thoughts that\nhave two heads. This accounts for the success of some of Mr.\nBeecher's rivals.\n\nChristians claim that success is a test of truth. Has any church\nsucceeded as well as the Catholic? Was the tragedy of the Garden\nof Eden a success? Who succeeded there? The last best thought is\nnot a success, if you mean that only that is a success which has\nsucceeded, and if you mean by succeeding, that it has won the assent\nof the majority. Besides there is no time fixed for the test. Is\nthat true which succeeds to-day, or next year, or in the next\ncentury? Once the Copernican system was not a success. There is\nno time fixed. The result is that we have to wait. A thing to\nexist at all has to be, to a certain extent, a success. A thing\ncannot even die without having been a success. It certainly\nsucceeded enough to have life. Presbyterians should remember,\nwhile arguing the majority argument, and the success argument, that\nthere are far more Catholics than Protestants, and that the Catholics\ncan give a longer list of distinguished names.\n\nMy answer to all this, however, is that the history of the world\nshows that ignorance has always been in the majority. There is\none right road; numberless paths that are wrong. Truth is one;\nerror is many. When a great truth has been discovered, one man\nhas pitted himself against the world. A few think; the many believe.\nThe few lead; the many follow. The light of the new day, as it\nlooks over the window sill of the east, falls at first on only one\nforehead.\n\nThere is another thing. A great many people pass for Christians\nwho are not. Only a little while ago a couple of ladies were\nreturning from church in a carriage. They had listened to a good\northodox sermon. One said to the other: \"I am going to tell you\nsomething--I am going to shock you--I do not believe in the Bible.\"\nAnd the other replied: \"Neither do I.\"\n\n--_The News_, Detroit, Michigan, January 6, 1884.\n\n\nPOLITICS, MORMONISM AND MR. BEECHER\n\n_Question_. What will be the main issues in the next presidential\ncampaign?\n\n_Answer_. I think that the principal issues will be civil rights\nand protection for American industries. The Democratic party is\nnot a unit on the tariff question--neither is the Republican; but\nI think that a majority of the Democrats are in favor of free trade\nand a majority of Republicans in favor of a protective tariff.\nThe Democratic Congressmen will talk just enough about free trade\nto frighten the manufacturing interests of the country, and probably\nnot quite enough to satisfy the free traders. The result will be\nthat the Democrats will talk about reforming the tariff, but will\ndo nothing but talk. I think the tariff ought to be reformed in\nmany particulars; but as long as we need to raise a great revenue\nmy idea is that it ought to be so arranged as to protect to the\nutmost, without producing monopoly in American manufacturers. I\nam in favor of protection because it multiplies industries; and I\nam in favor of a great number of industries because they develop\nthe brain, because they give employment to all and allow us to\nutilize all the muscle and all the sense we have. If we were all\nfarmers we would grow stupid. If we all worked at one kind of\nmechanic art we would grow dull. But with a variety of industries,\nwith a constant premium upon ingenuity, with the promise of wealth\nas the reward of success in any direction, the people become\nintelligent, and while we are protecting our industries we develop\nour brains. So I am in favor of the protection of civil rights by\nthe Federal Government, and that, in my judgment, will be one of\nthe great issues in the next campaign.\n\n_Question_. I see that you say that one of the great issues in\nthe coming campaign will be civil rights; what do you mean by that?\n\n_Answer_. Well, I mean this. The Supreme Court has recently\ndecided that a colored man whose rights are trampled upon, in a\nState, cannot appeal to the Federal Government for protection.\nThe decision amounts to this: That Congress has no right until a\nState has acted, and has acted contrary to the Constitution. Now,\nif a State refuses to do anything upon the subject, what is the\ncitizen to do? My opinion is that the Government is bound to\nprotect its citizens, and as a consideration for this protection,\nthe citizen is bound to stand by the Government. When the nation\ncalls for troops, the citizen of each State is bound to respond,\nno matter what his State may think. This doctrine must be maintained,\nor the United States ceases to be a nation. If a man looks to his\nState for protection, then he must go with his State. My doctrine\nis, that there should be patriotism upon the one hand, and protection\nupon the other. If a State endeavors to secede from the Union, a\ncitizen of that State should be in a position to defy the State\nand appeal to the Nation for protection. The doctrine now is, that\nthe General Government turns the citizen over to the State for\nprotection, and if the State does not protect him, that is his\nmisfortune; and the consequence of this doctrine will be to build\nup the old heresy of State Sovereignty--a doctrine that was never\nappealed to except in the interest of thieving or robbery. That\ndoctrine was first appealed to when the Constitution was formed,\nbecause they were afraid the National Government would interfere\nwith the slave trade. It was next appealed to, to uphold the\nFugitive Slave Law. It was next appealed to, to give the territories\nof the United States to slavery. Then it was appealed to, to\nsupport rebellion, and now out of this doctrine they attempt to\nbuild a breastwork, behind which they can trample upon the rights\nof free colored men.\n\nI believe in the sovereignty of the Nation. A nation that cannot\nprotect its citizens ought to stop playing nation. In the old\ntimes the Supreme Court found no difficulty in supporting slavery\nby \"inference,\" by \"intendment,\" but now that liberty has become\nnational, the Court is driven to less than a literal interpretation.\nIf the Constitution does not support liberty, it is of no use. To\nmaintain liberty is the only legitimate object of human government.\nI hope the time will come when the judges of the Supreme Court will\nbe elected, say for a period of ten years. I do not believe in\nthe legal monk system. I believe in judges still maintaining an\ninterest in human affairs.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the Mormon question?\n\n_Answer_. I do not believe in the bayonet plan. Mormonism must\nbe done away with by the thousand influences of civilization, by\neducation, by the elevation of the people. Of course, a gentleman\nwould rather have one noble woman than a hundred females. I hate\nthe system of polygamy. Nothing is more infamous. I admit that\nthe Old Testament upholds it. I admit that the patriarchs were\nmostly polygamists. I admit that Solomon was mistaken on that\nsubject. But notwithstanding the fact that polygamy is upheld by\nthe Jewish Scriptures, I believe it to be a great wrong. At the\nsame time if you undertake to get the idea out of the Mormons by\nforce you will not succeed. I think a good way to do away with\nthat institution would be for all the churches to unite, bear the\nexpense, and send missionaries to Utah; let these ministers call\nthe people together and read to them the lives of David, Solomon,\nAbraham and other patriarchs. Let all the missionaries be called\nhome from foreign fields and teach these people that they should\nnot imitate the only men with whom God ever condescended to hold\nintercourse. Let these frightful examples be held up to these\npeople, and if it is done earnestly, it seems to me that the result\nwould be good.\n\nPolygamy exists. All laws upon the subject should take that fact\ninto consideration, and punishment should be provided for offences\nthereafter committed. The children of Mormons should be legitimized.\nIn other words, in attempting to settle this question, we should\naccomplish all the good possible, with the least possible harm.\n\nI agree mostly with Mr. Beecher, and I utterly disagree with the\nRev. Mr. Newman. Mr. Newman wants to kill and slay. He does not\nrely upon Christianity, but upon brute force. He has lost his\nconfidence in example, and appeals to the bayonet. Mr. Newman had\na discussion with one of the Mormon elders, and was put to ignominious\nflight; no wonder that he appeals to force. Having failed in\nargument, he calls for artillery; having been worsted in the appeal\nto Scripture, he asks for the sword. He says, failing to convert,\nlet us kill; and he takes this position in the name of the religion\nof kindness and forgiveness.\n\nStrange that a minister now should throw away the Bible and yell\nfor a bayonet; that he should desert the Scriptures and call for\nsoldiers; that he should lose confidence in the power of the Spirit\nand trust in a sword. I recommend that Mormonism be done away with\nby distributing the Old Testament throughout Utah.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the investigation of the Department\nof Justice now going on?\n\n_Answer_. The result, in my judgment, will depend on its thoroughness.\nIf Mr. Springer succeeds in proving exactly what the Department of\nJustice did, the methods pursued, if he finds out what their spies\nand detectives and agents were instructed to do, then I think the\nresult will be as disastrous to the Department as beneficial to\nthe country. The people seem to have forgotten that a little while\nafter the first Star Route trial three of the agents of the Department\nof Justice were indicted for endeavoring to bribe the jury. They\nforget that Mr. Bowen, an agent of the Department of Justice, is\na fugitive, because he endeavored to bribe the foreman of the jury.\nThey seem to forget that the Department of Justice, in order to\ncover its own tracks, had the foreman of the jury indicted because\none of its agents endeavored to bribe him. Probably this investigation\nwill nudge the ribs of the public enough to make people remember\nthese things. Personally, I have no feelings on the subject. It\nwas enough for me that we succeeded in thwarting its methods, in\nspite of the detectives, spies, and informers.\n\nThe Department is already beginning to dissolve. Brewster Cameron\nhas left it, and as a reward has been exiled to Arizona. Mr.\nBrewster will probably be the next to pack his official valise.\nA few men endeavored to win popularity by pursuing a few others,\nand thus far they have been conspicuous failures. MacVeagh and\nJames are to-day enjoying the oblivion earned by misdirected energy,\nand Mr. Brewster will soon keep them company. The history of the\nworld does not furnish an instance of more flagrant abuse of power.\nThere never was a trial as shamelessly conducted by a government.\nBut, as I said before, I have no feeling now except that of pity.\n\n_Question_. I see that Mr. Beecher is coming round to your views\non theology?\n\n_Answer_. I would not have the egotism to say that he was coming\nround to my views, but evidently Mr. Beecher has been growing.\nHis head has been instructed by his heart; and if a man will allow\neven the poor plant of pity to grow in his heart he will hold in\ninfinite execration all orthodox religion. The moment he will\nallow himself to think that eternal consequences depend upon human\nlife; that the few short years we live in the world determine for\nan eternity the question of infinite joy or infinite pain; the\nmoment he thinks of that he will see that it is an infinite absurdity.\nFor instance, a man is born in Arkansas and lives there to be\nseventeen or eighteen years of age, is it possible that he can be\ntruthfully told at the day of judgment that he had a fair chance?\nJust imagine a man being held eternally responsible for his conduct\nin Delaware! Mr. Beecher is a man of great genius--full of poetry\nand pathos. Every now and then he is driven back by the orthodox\nmembers of his congregation toward the old religion, and for the\nbenefit of those weak disciples he will preach what is called \"a\ndoctrinal sermon;\" but before he gets through with it, seeing that\nit is infinitely cruel, he utters a cry of horror, and protests\nwith all the strength of his nature against the cruelty of the\ncreed. I imagine that he has always thought that he was under\ngreat obligation to Plymouth Church, but the truth is that the\nchurch depends upon him; that church gets its character from Mr.\nBeecher. He has done a vast deal to ameliorate the condition of\nthe average orthodox mind. He excites the envy of the mediocre\nminister, and he excites the hatred of the really orthodox, but he\nreceives the approbation of good and generous men everywhere. For\nmy part, I have no quarrel with any religion that does not threaten\neternal punishment to very good people, and that does not promise\neternal reward to very bad people. If orthodox Christianity is\ntrue, some of the best people I know are going to hell, and some\nof the meanest I have ever known are either in heaven or on the\nroad. Of course, I admit that there are thousands and millions of\ngood Christians--honest and noble people, but in my judgment, Mr.\nBeecher is the greatest man in the world who now occupies a pulpit.\n* * * * *\nSpeaking of a man's living in Delaware, a young man, some time ago,\ncame up to me on the street, in an Eastern city and asked for money.\n\"What is your business,\" I asked. \"I am a waiter by profession.\"\n\"Where do you come from?\" \"Delaware.\" \"Well, what was the matter\n--did you drink, or cheat your employer, or were you idle?\" \"No.\"\n\"What was the trouble?\" \"Well, the truth is, the State is so small\nthey don't need any waiters; they all reach for what they want.\"\n\n_Question_. Do you not think there are some dangerous tendencies\nin Liberalism?\n\n_Answer_. I will first state this proposition: The credit system\nin morals, as in business, breeds extravagance. The cash system\nin morals, as well as in business, breeds economy. We will suppose\na community in which everybody is bound to sell on credit, and in\nwhich every creditor can take the benefit of the bankrupt law every\nSaturday night, and the constable pays the costs. In my judgment\nthat community would be extravagant as long as the merchants lasted.\nWe will take another community in which everybody has to pay cash,\nand in my judgment that community will be a very economical one.\nNow, then, let us apply this to morals. Christianity allows\neverybody to sin on a credit, and allows a man who has lived, we\nwill say sixty-nine years, what Christians are pleased to call a\nworldly life, an immoral life. They allow him on his death-bed,\nbetween the last dose of medicine and the last breath, to be\nconverted, and that man who has done nothing except evil, becomes\nan angel. Here is another man who has lived the same length of\ntime, doing all the good he possibly could do, but not meeting with\nwhat they are pleased to call \"a change of heart;\" he goes to a\nworld of pain. Now, my doctrine is that everybody must reap exactly\nwhat he sows, other things being equal. If he acts badly he will\nnot be very happy; if he acts well he will not be very sad. I\nbelieve in the doctrine of consequences, and that every man must\nstand the consequences of his own acts. It seems to me that that\nfact will have a greater restraining influence than the idea that\nyou can, just before you leave this world, shift your burden on to\nsomebody else. I am a believer in the restraining influences of\nliberty, because responsibility goes hand in hand with freedom.\nI do not believe that the gallows is the last step between earth\nand heaven. I do not believe in the conversion and salvation of\nmurderers while their innocent victims are in hell. The church\nhas taught so long that he who acts virtuously carries a cross,\nand that only sinners enjoy themselves, that it may be that for a\nlittle while after men leave the church they may go to extremes\nuntil they demonstrate for themselves that the path of vice is the\npath of thorns, and that only along the wayside of virtue grow the\nflowers of joy. The church has depicted virtue as a sour, wrinkled\ntermagant; an old woman with nothing but skin and bones, and a\ntemper beyond description; and at the same time vice has been\npainted in all the voluptuous outlines of a Greek statue. The\ntruth is exactly the other way. A thing is right because it pays;\na thing is wrong because it does not; and when I use the word\n\"pays,\" I mean in the highest and noblest sense.\n\n--_The Daily News_, Denver, Colorado, January 17, 1884.\n\n\nFREE TRADE AND CHRISTIANITY.\n\n_Question_. Who will be the Republican nominee for President?\n\n_Answer_. The correct answer to this question would make so many\nmen unhappy that I have concluded not to give it.\n\n_Question_. Has not the Democracy injured itself irretrievably by\npermitting the free trade element to rule it?\n\n_Answer_. I do not think that the Democratic party weakened itself\nby electing Carlisle, Speaker. I think him an excellent man, an\nexceedingly candid man, and one who will do what he believes ought\nto be done. I have a very high opinion of Mr. Carlisle. I do not\nsuppose any party in this country is really for free trade. I find\nthat all writers upon the subject, no matter which side they are\non, are on that side with certain exceptions. Adam Smith was in\nfavor of free trade, with a few exceptions, and those exceptions\nwere in matters where he thought it was for England's interest not\nto have free trade. The same may be said of all writers. So far\nas I can see, the free traders have all the arguments and the\nprotectionists all the facts. The free trade theories are splendid,\nbut they will not work; the results are disastrous. We find by\nactual experiment that it is better to protect home industries.\nIt was once said that protection created nothing but monopoly; the\nargument was that way, but the facts are not. Take, for instance,\nsteel rails; when we bought them of England we paid one hundred\nand twenty-five dollars a ton. I believe there was a tariff of\ntwenty-eight or twenty-nine dollars a ton, and yet in spite of all\nthe arguments going to show that protection would simply increase\nprices in America, would simply enrich the capitalists and impoverish\nthe consumer, steel rails are now produced, I believe, right here\nin Colorado for forty-two dollars a ton.\n\nAfter all, it is a question of labor; a question of prices that\nshall be paid the laboring man; a question of what the laboring\nman shall eat; whether he shall eat meat or soup made from the\nbones. Very few people take into consideration the value of raw\nmaterial and the value of labor. Take, for instance, your ton of\nsteel rails worth forty-two dollars. The iron in the earth is not\nworth twenty-five cents. The coal in the earth and the lime in\nthe ledge together are not worth twenty-five cents. Now, then, of\nthe forty-two dollars, forty-one and a half is labor. There is\nnot two dollars' worth of raw material in a locomotive worth fifteen\nthousand dollars. By raw material I mean the material in the earth.\nThere is not in the works of a watch which will sell for fifteen\ndollars, raw material of the value of one-half cent. All the rest\nis labor. A ship, a man-of-war that costs one million dollars--\nthe raw material in the earth is not worth, in my judgment, one\nthousand dollars. All the rest is labor. If there is any way to\nprotect American labor, I am in favor of it. If the present tariff\ndoes not do it, then I am in favor of changing to one that will.\nIf the Democratic party takes a stand for free trade or anything\nlike it, they will need protection; they will need protection at\nthe polls; that is to say, they will meet only with defeat and\ndisaster.\n\n_Question_. What should be done with the surplus revenue?\n\n_Answer_. My answer to that is, reduce internal revenue taxation\nuntil the present surplus is exhausted, and then endeavor so to\narrange your tariff that you will not produce more than you need.\nI think the easiest question to grapple with on this earth is a\nsurplus of money.\n\nI do not believe in distributing it among the States. I do not think\nthere could be a better certificate of the prosperity of our country\nthan the fact that we are troubled with a surplus revenue; that we\nhave the machinery for collecting taxes in such perfect order, so\ningeniously contrived, that it cannot be stopped; that it goes\nright on collecting money, whether we want it or not; and the\nwonderful thing about it is that nobody complains. If nothing else\ncan be done with the surplus revenue, probably we had better pay\nsome of our debts. I would suggest, as a last resort, to pay a\nfew honest claims.\n\n_Question_. Are you getting nearer to or farther away from God,\nChristianity and the Bible?\n\n_Answer_. In the first place, as Mr. Locke so often remarked, we\nwill define our terms. If by the word \"God\" is meant a person, a\nbeing, who existed before the creation of the universe, and who\ncontrols all that is, except himself, I do not believe in such a\nbeing; but if by the word God is meant all that is, that is to say,\nthe universe, including every atom and every star, then I am a\nbeliever. I suppose the word that would nearest describe me is\n\"Pantheist.\" I cannot believe that a being existed from eternity,\nand who finally created this universe after having wasted an eternity\nin idleness; but upon this subject I know just as little as anybody\never did or ever will, and, in my judgment, just as much. My\nintellectual horizon is somewhat limited, and, to tell you the\ntruth, this is the only world that I was ever in. I am what might\nbe called a representative of a rural district, and, as a matter\nof fact, I know very little about the district. I believe it was\nConfucius who said: \"How should I know anything about another\nworld when I know so little of this?\"\n\nThe greatest intellects of the world have endeavored to find words\nto express their conception of God, of the first cause, or of the\nscience of being, but they have never succeeded. I find in the\nold Confession of Faith, in the old Catechism, for instance, this\ndescription: That God is a being without body, parts or passions.\nI think it would trouble anybody to find a better definition of\nnothing. That describes a vacuum, that is to say, that describes\nthe absence of everything. I find that theology is a subject that\nonly the most ignorant are certain about, and that the more a man\nthinks, the less he knows.\n\nFrom the Bible God, I do not know that I am going farther and\nfarther away. I have been about as far as a man could get for many\nyears. I do not believe in the God of the Old Testament.\n\nNow, as to the next branch of your question, Christianity.\n\nThe question arises, What is Christianity? I have no objection to\nthe morality taught as a part of Christianity, no objection to its\ncharity, its forgiveness, its kindness; no objection to its hope\nfor this world and another, not the slightest, but all these things\ndo not make Christianity. Mohammed taught certain doctrines that\nare good, but the good in the teachings of Mohammed is not Mohammedism.\nWhen I speak of Christianity I speak of that which is distinctly\nChristian. For instance, the idea that the Infinite God was born\nin Palestine, learned the carpenter's trade, disputed with the\nparsons of his time, excited the wrath of the theological bigots,\nand was finally crucified; that afterward he was raised from the\ndead, and that if anybody believes this he will be saved and if he\nfails to believe it, he will be lost; in other words, that which\nis distinctly Christian in the Christian system, is its supernaturalism,\nits miracles, its absurdity. Truth does not need to go into\npartnership with the supernatural. What Christ said is worth the\nreason it contains. If a man raises the dead and then says twice\ntwo are five, that changes no rule in mathematics. If a multiplication\ntable was divinely inspired, that does no good. The question is,\nis it correct? So I think that in the world of morals, we must\nprove that a thing is right or wrong by experience, by analogy,\nnot by miracles. There is no fact in physical science that can be\nsupernaturally demonstrated. Neither is there any fact in the\nmoral world that could be substantiated by miracles. Now, then,\nkeeping in mind that by Christianity I mean the supernatural in\nthat system, of course I am just as far away from it as I can get.\nFor the man Christ I have respect. He was an infidel in his day,\nand the ministers of his day cried out blasphemy, as they have been\ncrying ever since, against every person who has suggested a new\nthought or shown the worthlessness of an old one.\n\nNow, as to the third part of the question, the Bible. People say\nthat the Bible is inspired. Well, what does inspiration mean?\nDid God write it? No; but the men who did write it were guided by\nthe Holy Spirit. Very well. Did they write exactly what the Holy\nSpirit wanted them to write? Well, religious people say, yes. At\nthe same time they admit that the gentlemen who were collecting,\nor taking down in shorthand what was said, had to use their own\nwords. Now, we all know that the same words do not have the same\nmeaning to all people. It is impossible to convey the same thoughts\nto all minds by the same language, and it is for that reason that\nthe Bible has produced so many sects, not only disagreeing with\neach other, but disagreeing among themselves.\n\nWe find, then, that it is utterly impossible for God (admitting\nthat there is one) to convey the same thoughts in human language\nto all people. No two persons understand the same language alike.\nA man's understanding depends upon his experience, upon his capacity,\nupon the particular bent of his mind--in fact, upon the countless\ninfluences that have made him what he is. Everything in nature\ntells everyone who sees it a story, but that story depends upon\nthe capacity of the one to whom it is told. The sea says one thing\nto the ordinary man, and another thing to Shakespeare. The stars\nhave not the same language for all people. The consequence is that\nno book can tell the same story to any two persons. The Jewish\nScriptures are like other books, written by different men in\ndifferent ages of the world, hundreds of years apart, filled with\ncontradictions. They embody, I presume, fairly enough, the wisdom\nand ignorance, the reason and prejudice, of the times in which they\nwere written. They are worth the good that is in them, and the\nquestion is whether we will take the good and throw the bad away.\nThere are good laws and bad laws. There are wise and foolish\nsayings. There are gentle and cruel passages, and you can find a\ntext to suit almost any frame of mind; whether you wish to do an\nact of charity or murder a neighbor's babe, you will find a passage\nthat will exactly fit the case. So that I can say that I am still\nfor the reasonable, for the natural; and am still opposed to the\nabsurd and supernatural.\n\n_Question_. Is there any better or more ennobling belief than\nChristianity; if so, what is it?\n\n_Answer_. There are many good things, of course, in every religion,\nor they would not have existed; plenty of good precepts in\nChristianity, but the thing that I object to more than all others\nis the doctrine of eternal punishment, the idea of hell for many\nand heaven for the few. Take from Christianity the doctrine of\neternal punishment and I have no particular objection to what is\ngenerally preached. If you will take that away, and all the\nsupernatural connected with it, I have no objection; but that\ndoctrine of eternal punishment tends to harden the human heart.\nIt has produced more misery than all the other doctrines in the\nworld. It has shed more blood; it has made more martyrs. It has\nlighted the fires of persecution and kept the sword of cruelty wet\nwith heroic blood for at least a thousand years. There is no crime\nthat that doctrine has not produced. I think it would be impossible\nfor the imagination to conceive of a worse religion than orthodox\nChristianity--utterly impossible; a doctrine that divides this\nworld, a doctrine that divides families, a doctrine that teaches\nthe son that he can be happy, with his mother in perdition; the\nhusband that he can be happy in heaven while his wife suffers the\nagonies of hell. This doctrine is infinite injustice, and tends\nto subvert all ideas of justice in the human heart. I think it\nwould be impossible to conceive of a doctrine better calculated to\nmake wild beasts of men than that; in fact, that doctrine was born\nof all the wild beast there is in man. It was born of infinite\nrevenge.\n\nThink of preaching that you must believe that a certain being was\nthe son of God, no matter whether your reason is convinced or not.\nSuppose one should meet, we will say on London Bridge, a man clad\nin rags, and he should stop us and say, \"My friend, I wish to talk\nwith you a moment. I am the rightful King of Great Britain,\" and\nyou should say to him, \"Well, my dinner is waiting; I have no time\nto bother about who the King of England is,\" and then he should\nmeet another and insist on his stopping while the pulled out some\npapers to show that he was the rightful King of England, and the\nother man should say, \"I have got business here, my friend; I am\nselling goods, and I have no time to bother my head about who the\nKing of England is. No doubt you are the King of England, but you\ndon't look like him.\" And then suppose he stops another man, and\nmakes the same statement to him, and the other man should laugh at\nhim and say, \"I don't want to hear anything on this subject; you\nare crazy; you ought to go to some insane asylum, or put something\non your head to keep you cool.\" And suppose, after all, it should\nturn out that the man was King of England, and should afterward\nmake his claim good and be crowned in Westminster. What would we\nthink of that King if he should hunt up the gentlemen that he met\non London Bridge, and have their heads cut off because they had\nno faith that he was the rightful heir? And what would we think\nof a God now who would damn a man eighteen hundred years after the\nevent, because he did not believe that he was God at the time he\nwas living in Jerusalem; not only damn the fellows that he met and\nwho did not believe him, but gentlemen who lived eighteen hundred\nyears afterward, and who certainly could have known nothing of the\nfacts except from hearsay?\n\nThe best religion, after all, is common sense; a religion for this\nworld, one world at a time, a religion for to-day. We want a\nreligion that will deal in questions in which we are interested.\nHow are we to do away with crime? How are we to do away with\npauperism? How are we to do away with want and misery in every\ncivilized country? England is a Christian nation, and yet about\none in six in the city of London dies in almshouses, asylums,\nprisons, hospitals and jails. We, I suppose, are a civilized\nnation, and yet all the penitentiaries are crammed; there is want\non every hand, and my opinion is that we had better turn our\nattention to this world.\n\nChristianity is charitable; Christianity spends a great deal of\nmoney; but I am somewhat doubtful as to the good that is accomplished.\nThere ought to be some way to prevent crime; not simply to punish\nit. There ought to be some way to prevent pauperism, not simply\nto relieve temporarily a pauper, and if the ministers and good\npeople belonging to the churches would spend their time investigating\nthe affairs of this world and let the New Jerusalem take care of\nitself, I think it would be far better.\n\nThe church is guilty of one great contradiction. The ministers\nare always talking about worldly people, and yet, were it not for\nworldly people, who would pay the salary? How could the church\nlive a minute unless somebody attended to the affairs of this world?\nThe best religion, in my judgment, is common sense going along hand\nin hand with kindness, and not troubling ourselves about another\nworld until we get there. I am willing for one, to wait and see\nwhat kind of a country it will be.\n\n_Question_. Does the question of the inspiration of Scriptures\naffect the beauty and benefits of Christianity here and hereafter?\n\n_Answer_. A belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures has done,\nin my judgment, great harm. The Bible has been the breastwork for\nnearly everything wrong. The defenders of slavery relied on the\nBible. The Bible was the real auction block on which every negro\nstood when he was sold. I never knew a minister to preach in favor\nof slavery that did not take his text from the Bible. The Bible\nteaches persecution for opinion's sake. The Bible--that is the\nOld Testament--upholds polygamy, and just to the extent that men,\nthrough the Bible, have believed that slavery, religious persecution,\nwars of extermination and polygamy were taught by God, just to that\nextent the Bible has done great harm. The idea of inspiration\nenslaves the human mind and debauches the human heart.\n\n_Question_. Is not Christianity and the belief in God a check upon\nmankind in general and thus a good thing in itself?\n\n_Answer_. This, again, brings up the question of what you mean by\nChristianity, but taking it for granted that you mean by Christianity\nthe church, then I answer, when the church had almost absolute\nauthority, then the world was the worst.\n\nNow, as to the other part of the question, \"Is not a belief in God\na check upon mankind in general?\" That is owing to what kind of\nGod the man believes in. When mankind believed in the God of the\nOld Testament, I think that belief was a bad thing; the tendency\nwas bad. I think that John Calvin patterned after Jehovah as nearly\nas his health and strength would permit. Man makes God in his own\nimage, and bad men are not apt to have a very good God if they make\nhim. I believe it is far better to have a real belief in goodness,\nin kindness, in honesty and in mankind than in any supernatural\nbeing whatever. I do not suppose it would do any harm for a man\nto believe in a real good God, a God without revenge, a God that\nwas not very particular in having a man believe a doctrine whether\nhe could understand it or not. I do not believe that a belief of\nthat kind would do any particular harm.\n\nThere is a vast difference between the God of John Calvin and the\nGod of Henry Ward Beecher, and a great difference between the God\nof Cardinal Pedro Gonzales de Mendoza and the God of Theodore\nParker.\n\n_Question_. Well, Colonel, is the world growing better or worse?\n\n_Answer_. I think better in some respects and worse in others;\nbut on the whole, better. I think that while events, like the\npendulum of a clock, go backward and forward, man, like the hands,\ngoes forward. I think there is more reason and less religion, more\ncharity and less creed. I think the church is improving. Ministers\nare ashamed to preach the old doctrines with the old fervor. There\nwas a time when the pulpit controlled the pews. It is so no longer.\nThe pews know what they want, and if the minister does not furnish\nit they discharge him and employ another. He is no longer an\nautocrat; he must bring to the market what his customers are willing\nto buy.\n\n_Question_. What are you going to do to be saved?\n\n_Answer_. Well, I think I am safe, anyway. I suppose I have a\nright to rely on what Matthew says, that if I will forgive others\nGod will forgive me. I suppose if there is another world I shall\nbe treated very much as I treat others. I never expect to find\nperfect bliss anywhere; maybe I should tire of it if I should.\nWhat I have endeavored to do has been to put out the fires of an\nignorant and cruel hell; to do what I could to destroy that dogma;\nto destroy the doctrine that makes the cradle as terrible as the\ncoffin.\n\n--_The Denver Republican_, Denver, Colorado, January 17, 1884.\n\n\nTHE OATH QUESTION.\n\n_Question_. I suppose that your attention has been called to the\nexcitement in England over the oath question, and you have probably\nwondered that so much should have been made of so little?\n\n_Answer_. Yes; I have read a few articles upon the subject,\nincluding one by Cardinal Newman. It is wonderful that so many\npeople imagine that there is something miraculous in the oath.\nThey seem to regard it as a kind of verbal fetich, a charm, an \"open\nsesame\" to be pronounced at the door of truth, a spell, a kind of\nmoral thumbscrew, by means of which falsehood itself is compelled\nto turn informer.\n\nThe oath has outlived its brother, \"the wager of battle.\" Both\nwere born of the idea that God would interfere for the right and\nfor the truth. Trial by fire and by water had the same origin.\nIt was once believed that the man in the wrong could not kill the\nman in the right; but, experience having shown that he usually did,\nthe belief gradually fell into disrepute. So it was once thought\nthat a perjurer could not swallow a piece of sacramental bread;\nbut, the fear that made the swallowing difficult having passed\naway, the appeal to the corsned was abolished. It was found that\na brazen or a desperate man could eat himself out of the greatest\ndifficulty with perfect ease, satisfying the law and his own hunger\nat the same time.\n\nThe oath is a relic of barbarous theology, of the belief that a\npersonal God interferes in the affairs of men; that some God protects\ninnocence and guards the right. The experience of the world has\nsadly demonstrated the folly of that belief. The testimony of a\nwitness ought to be believed, not because it is given under the\nsolemnities of an oath, but because it is reasonable. If unreasonable\nit ought to be thrown aside. The question ought not to be, \"Has\nthis been sworn to?\" but, \"Is this true?\" The moment evidence is\ntested by the standard of reason, the oath becomes a useless\nceremony. Let the man who gives false evidence be punished as the\nlawmaking power may prescribe. He should be punished because he\ncommits a crime against society, and he should be punished in this\nworld. All honest men will tell the truth if they can; therefore,\noaths will have no effect upon them. Dishonest men will not tell\nthe truth unless the truth happens to suit their purpose; therefore,\noaths will have no effect upon them. We punish them, not for\nswearing to a lie, but for telling it, and we can make the punishment\nfor telling the falsehood just as severe as we wish. If they are\nto be punished in another world, the probability is that the\npunishment there will be for having told the falsehood here. After\nall, a lie is made no worse by an oath, and the truth is made no\nbetter.\n\n_Question_. You object then to the oath. Is your objection based\non any religious grounds, or on any prejudice against the ceremony\nbecause of its religious origin; or what is your objection?\n\n_Answer_. I care nothing about the origin of the ceremony. The\nobjection to the oath is this: It furnishes a falsehood with a\nletter of credit. It supplies the wolf with sheep's clothing and\ncovers the hands of Jacob with hair. It blows out the light, and\nin the darkness Leah is taken for Rachel. It puts upon each witness\na kind of theological gown. This gown hides the moral rags of the\ndepraved wretch as well as the virtues of the honest man. The oath\nis a mask that falsehood puts on, and for a moment is mistaken for\ntruth. It gives to dishonesty the advantage of solemnity. The\ntendency of the oath is to put all testimony on an equality. The\nobscure rascal and the man of sterling character both \"swear,\" and\njurors who attribute a miraculous quality to the oath, forget the\nreal difference in the men, and give about the same weight to the\nevidence of each, because both were \"sworn.\" A scoundrel is\ndelighted with the opportunity of going through a ceremony that\ngives importance and dignity to his story, that clothes him for\nthe moment with respectability, loans him the appearance of\nconscience, and gives the ring of true coin to the base metal. To\nhim the oath is a shield. He is in partnership, for a moment, with\nGod, and people who have no confidence in the witness credit the\nfirm.\n\n_Question_. Of course you know the religionists insist that people\nare more likely to tell the truth when \"sworn,\" and that to take\naway the oath is to destroy the foundation of testimony?\n\n_Answer_. If the use of the oath is defended on the ground that\nreligious people need a stimulus to tell the truth, then I am\ncompelled to say that religious people have been so badly educated\nthat they mistake the nature of the crime.\n\nThey should be taught that to defeat justice by falsehood is the\nreal offence. Besides, fear is not the natural foundation of\nvirtue. Even with religious people fear cannot always last.\nAnanias and Sapphira have been dead so long, and since their time\nso many people have sworn falsely without affecting their health\nthat the fear of sudden divine vengeance no longer pales the cheek\nof the perjurer. If the vengeance is not sudden, then, according\nto the church, the criminal will have plenty of time to repent; so\nthat the oath no longer affects even the fearful. Would it not be\nbetter for the church to teach that telling the falsehood is the\nreal crime, and that taking the oath neither adds to nor takes from\nits enormity? Would it not be better to teach that he who does\nwrong must suffer the consequences, whether God forgives him or not?\n\nHe who tries to injure another may or may not succeed, but he cannot\nby any possibility fail to injure himself. Men should be taught\nthat there is no difference between truth-telling and truth-swearing.\nNothing is more vicious than the idea that any ceremony or form of\nwords--hand-lifting or book-kissing--can add, even in the slightest\ndegree, to the perpetual obligation every human being is under to\nspeak the truth.\n\nThe truth, plainly told, naturally commends itself to the intelligent.\nEvery fact is a genuine link in the infinite chain, and will agree\nperfectly with every other fact. A fact asks to be inspected, asks\nto be understood. It needs no oath, no ceremony, no supernatural\naid. It is independent of all the gods. A falsehood goes in\npartnership with theology, and depends on the partner for success.\n\nTo show how little influence for good has been attributed to the\noath, it is only necessary to say that for centuries, in the\nChristian world, no person was allowed to testify who had the\nslightest pecuniary interest in the result of a suit.\n\nThe expectation of a farthing in this world was supposed to outweigh\nthe fear of God's wrath in the next. All the pangs, pains, and\npenalties of perdition were considered as nothing when compared\nwith pounds, shillings and pence in this world.\n\n_Question_. You know that in nearly all deliberative bodies--in\nparliaments and congresses--an oath or an affirmation is required\nto support what is called the Constitution; and that all officers\nare required to swear or affirm that they will discharge their\nduties; do these oaths and affirmations, in your judgment, do any\ngood?\n\n_Answer_. Men have sought to make nations and institutions immortal\nby oaths. Subjects have sworn to obey kings, and kings have sworn\nto protect subjects, and yet the subjects have sometimes beheaded\na king; and the king has often plundered the subjects. The oaths\nenabled them to deceive each other. Every absurdity in religion,\nand all tyrannical institutions, have been patched, buttressed,\nand reinforced by oaths; and yet the history of the world shows\nthe utter futility of putting in the coffin of an oath the political\nand religious aspirations of the race.\n\nRevolutions and reformations care little for \"So help me God.\"\nOaths have riveted shackles and sanctified abuses. People swear\nto support a constitution, and they will keep the oath as long as\nthe constitution supports them. In 1776 the colonists cared nothing\nfor the fact that they had sworn to support the British crown.\nAll the oaths to defend the Constitution of the United States did\nnot prevent the Civil War. We have at last learned that States\nmay be kept together for a little time, by force; permanently only\nby mutual interests. We have found that the Delilah of superstition\ncannot bind with oaths the secular Samson.\n\nWhy should a member of Parliament or of Congress swear to maintain\nthe Constitution? If he is a dishonest man, the oath will have no\neffect; if he is an honest patriot, it will have no effect. In\nboth cases it is equally useless. If a member fails to support\nthe Constitution the probability is that his constituents will\ntreat him as he does the Constitution. In this country, after all\nthe members of Congress have sworn or affirmed to defend the\nConstitution, each political party charges the other with a deliberate\nendeavor to destroy that \"sacred instrument.\" Possibly the political\noath was invented to prevent the free and natural development of\na nation. Kings and nobles and priests wished to retain the property\nthey had filched and clutched, and for that purpose they compelled\nthe real owners to swear that they would support and defend the\nlaw under color of which the theft and robbery had been accomplished.\n\nSo, in the church, creeds have been protected by oaths. Priests\nand laymen solemnly swore that they would, under no circumstances,\nresort to reason; that they would overcome facts by faith, and\nstrike down demonstrations with the \"sword of the spirit.\" Professors\nof the theological seminary at Andover, Massachusetts, swear to\ndefend certain dogmas and to attack others. They swear sacredly\nto keep and guard the ignorance they have. With them, philosophy\nleads to perjury, and reason is the road to crime. While theological\nprofessors are not likely to make an intellectual discovery, still\nit is unwise, by taking an oath, to render that certain which is\nonly improbable.\n\nIf all witnesses sworn to tell the truth, did so, if all members\nof Parliament and of Congress, in taking the oath, became intelligent,\npatriotic, and honest, I should be in favor of retaining the\nceremony; but we find that men who have taken the same oath advocate\nopposite ideas, and entertain different opinions, as to the meaning\nof constitutions and laws. The oath adds nothing to their\nintelligence; does not even tend to increase their patriotism, and\ncertainly does not make the dishonest honest.\n\n_Question_. Are not persons allowed to testify in the United States\nwhether they believe in future rewards and punishments or not?\n\n_Answer_. In this country, in most of the States, witnesses are\nallowed to testify whether they believe in perdition and paradise\nor not. In some States they are allowed to testify even if they\ndeny the existence of God. We have found that religious belief\ndoes not compel people to tell the truth, and than an utter denial\nof every Christian creed does not even tend to make them dishonest.\nYou see, a religious belief does not affect the senses. Justice\nshould not shut any door that leads to truth. No one will pretend\nthat, because you do not believe in hell, your sight is impaired,\nor your hearing dulled, or your memory rendered less retentive.\nA witness in a court is called upon to tell what he has seen, what\nhe has heard, what he remembers, not what he believes about gods\nand devils and hells and heavens. A witness substantiates not a\nfaith, but a fact. In order to ascertain whether a witness will\ntell the truth, you might with equal propriety examine him as to\nhis ideas about music, painting or architecture, as theology. A\nman may have no ear for music, and yet remember what he hears. He\nmay care nothing about painting, and yet is able to tell what he\nsees. So he may deny every creed, and yet be able to tell the\nfacts as he remembers them.\n\nThomas Jefferson was wise enough so to frame the Constitution of\nVirginia that no person could be deprived of any civil right on\naccount of his religious or irreligious belief. Through the\ninfluence of men like Paine, Franklin and Jefferson, it was provided\nin the Federal Constitution that officers elected under its authority\ncould swear or affirm. This was the natural result of the separation\nof church and state.\n\n_Question_. I see that your Presidents and Governors issue their\nproclamations calling on the people to assemble in their churches\nand offer thanks to God. How does this happen in a Government\nwhere church and state are not united?\n\n_Answer_. Jefferson, when President, refused to issue what is\nknown as the \"Thanksgiving Proclamation,\" on the ground that the\nFederal Government had no right to interfere in religious matters;\nthat the people owed no religious duties to the Government; that\nthe Government derived its powers, not from priests or gods, but\nfrom the people, and was responsible alone to the source of its\npower. The truth is, the framers of our Constitution intended that\nthe Government should be secular in the broadest and best sense;\nand yet there are thousands and thousands of religious people in\nthis country who are greatly scandalized because there is no\nrecognition of God in the Federal Constitution; and for several\nyears a great many ministers have been endeavoring to have the\nConstitution amended so as to recognize the existence of God and\nthe divinity of Christ. A man by the name of Pollock was once\nsuperintendent of the mint of Philadelphia. He was almost insane\nabout having God in the Constitution. Failing in that, he got the\ninscription on our money, \"In God we Trust.\" As our silver dollar\nis now, in fact, worth only eighty-five cents, it is claimed that\nthe inscription means that we trust in God for the other fifteen\ncents.\n\nThere is a constant effort on the part of many Christians to have\ntheir religion in some way recognized by law. Proclamations are\nnow issued calling upon the people to give thanks, and directing\nattention to the fact that, while God has scourged or neglected\nother nations, he has been remarkably attentive to the wants and\nwishes of the United States. Governors of States issue these\ndocuments written in a tone of pious insincerity. The year may or\nmay not have been prosperous, yet the degree of thankfulness called\nfor is always precisely the same.\n\nA few years ago the Governor of Iowa issued an exceedingly rhetorical\nproclamation, in which the people were requested to thank God for\nthe unparalleled blessings he had showered upon them. A private\ncitizen, fearing that the Lord might be misled by official\ncorrespondence, issued his proclamation, in which he recounted with\ngreat particularity the hardships of the preceding year. He insisted\nthat the weather had been of the poorest quality; that the spring\ncame late, and the frost early; that the people were in debt; that\nthe farms were mortgaged; that the merchants were bankrupt; and\nthat everything was in the worst possible condition. He concluded\nby sincerely hoping that the Lord would pay no attention to the\nproclamation of the Governor, but would, if he had any doubt on\nthe subject, come down and examine the State for himself.\n\nThese proclamations have always appeared to me absurdly egotistical.\nWhy should God treat us any better than he does the rest of his\nchildren? Why should he send pestilence and famine to China, and\nhealth and plenty to us? Why give us corn, and Egypt cholera?\nAll these proclamations grow out of egotism and selfishness, of\nignorance and superstition, and are based upon the idea that God\nis a capricious monster; that he loves flattery; that he can be\ncoaxed and cajoled.\n\nThe conclusion of the whole matter with me is this: For truth in\ncourts we must depend upon the trained intelligence of judges, the\nright of cross-examination, the honesty and common sense of jurors,\nand upon an enlightened public opinion. As for members of Congress,\nwe will trust to the wisdom and patriotism, not only of the members,\nbut of their constituents. In religion we will give to all the\nluxury of absolute liberty.\n\nThe alchemist did not succeed in finding any stone the touch of\nwhich transmuted baser things to gold; and priests have not invented\nyet an oath with power to force from falsehood's desperate lips\nthe pearl of truth.\n\n--_Secular Review_, London, England, 1884.\n\n\nWENDELL PHILLIPS, FITZ JOHN PORTER AND BISMARCK.\n\n_Question_. Are you seeking to quit public lecturing on religious\nquestions?\n\n_Answer_. As long as I live I expect now and then to say my say\nagainst the religious bigotry and cruelty of the world. As long\nas the smallest coal is red in hell I am going to keep on. I never\nhad the slightest idea of retiring. I expect the church to do the\nretiring.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of Wendell Phillips as an orator?\n\n_Answer_. He was a very great orator--one of the greatest that\nthe world has produced. He rendered immense service in the cause\nof freedom. He was in the old days the thunderbolt that pierced\nthe shield of the Constitution. One of the bravest soldiers that\never fought for human rights was Wendell Phillips.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the action of Congress on Fitz\nJohn Porter?\n\n_Answer_. I think Congress did right. I think they should have\ntaken this action long before. There was a question of his guilt,\nand he should have been given the benefit of a doubt. They say he\ncould have defeated Longstreet. There are some people, you know,\nwho would have it that an army could be whipped by a good general\nwith six mules and a blunderbuss. But we do not regard those\npeople. They know no more about it than a lady who talked to me\nabout Porter's case. She argued the question of Porter's guilt\nfor half an hour. I showed her where she was all wrong. When she\nfound she was beaten she took refuge with \"Oh, well, anyhow he had\nno genius.\" Well, if every man is to be shot who has no genius,\nI want to go into the coffin business.\n\n_Question_. What, in your judgment, is necessary to be done to\ninsure Republican success this fall?\n\n_Answer_. It is only necessary for the Republican party to stand\nby its principles. We must be in favor of protecting American\nlabor not only, but of protecting American capital, and we must be\nin favor of civil rights, and must advocate the doctrine that the\nFederal Government must protect all citizens. I am in favor of a\ntariff, not simply to raise a revenue--that I regard as incidental.\nThe Democrats regard protection as incidental. The two principles\nshould be, protection to American industry and protection to American\ncitizens. So that, after all, there is but one issue--protection.\nAs a matter of fact, that is all a government is for--to protect.\nThe Republican party is stronger to-day than it was four years ago.\nThe Republican party stands for the progressive ideas of the American\npeople. It has been said that the administration will control the\nSouthern delegates. I do not believe it. This administration has\nnot been friendly to the Southern Republicans, and my opinion is\nthere will be as much division in the Southern as in the Northern\nStates. I believe Blaine will be a candidate, and I do not believe\nthe Prohibitionists will put a ticket in the field, because they\nhave no hope of success.\n\n_Question_. What do you think generally of the revival of the\nbloody shirt? Do you think the investigations of the Republicans\nof the Danville and Copiah massacres will benefit them?\n\n_Answer_. Well, I am in favor of the revival of that question just\nas often as a citizen of the Republic is murdered on account of\nhis politics. If the South is sick of that question, let it stop\npersecuting men because they are Republicans. I do not believe,\nhowever, in simply investigating the question and then stopping\nafter the guilty ones are found. I believe in indicting them,\ntrying them, and convicting them. If the Government can do nothing\nexcept investigate, we might as well stop, and admit that we have\nno government. Thousands of people think that it is almost vulgar\nto take the part of the poor colored people in the South. What\npart should you take if not that of the weak? The strong do not\nneed you. And I can tell the Southern people now, that as long as\nthey persecute for opinion's sake they will never touch the reins\nof political power in this country.\n\n_Question_. How do you regard the action of Bismarck in returning\nthe Lasker resolutions? Was it the result of his hatred of the\nJews?\n\n_Answer_. Bismarck opposed a bill to do away with the disabilities\nof the Jews on the ground that Prussia is a Christian nation,\nfounded for the purpose of spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ.\nI presume that it was his hatred of the Jews that caused him to\nreturn the resolutions. Bismarck should have lived several centuries\nago. He belongs to the Dark Ages. He is a believer in the sword\nand the bayonet--in brute force. He was loved by Germany simply\nbecause he humiliated France. Germany gave her liberty for revenge.\nIt is only necessary to compare Bismarck with Gambetta to see what\na failure he really is. Germany was victorious and took from France\nthe earnings of centuries; and yet Germany is to-day the least\nprosperous nation in Europe. France was prostrate, trampled into\nthe earth, robbed, and yet, guided by Gambetta, is to-day the most\nprosperous nation in Europe. This shows the difference between\nbrute force and brain.\n\n--_The Times_, Chicago, Illinois, February 21, 1884.\n\n\nGENERAL SUBJECTS.\n\n_Question_. Do you enjoy lecturing?\n\n_Answer_. Of course I enjoy lecturing. It is a great pleasure to\ndrive the fiend of fear out of the hearts of men women and children.\nIt is a positive joy to put out the fires of hell.\n\n_Question_. Where do you meet with the bitterest opposition?\n\n_Answer_. I meet with the bitterest opposition where the people\nare the most ignorant, where there is the least thought, where\nthere are the fewest books. The old theology is becoming laughable.\nVery few ministers have the impudence to preach in the old way.\nThey give new meanings to old words. They subscribe to the same\ncreed, but preach exactly the other way. The clergy are ashamed\nto admit that they are orthodox, and they ought to be.\n\n_Question_. Do liberal books, such as the works of Paine and\nInfidel scientists sell well?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, they are about the only books on serious subjects\nthat do sell well. The works of Darwin, Buckle, Draper, Haeckel,\nTyndall, Humboldt and hundreds of others, are read by intelligent\npeople the world over. Works of a religious character die on the\nshelves. The people want facts. They want to know about the world,\nabout all forms of life. They want the mysteries of every day\nsolved. They want honest thoughts about sensible questions. They\nare tired of the follies of faith and the falsehoods of superstition.\nThey want a heaven here. In a few years the old theological books\nwill be sold to make paper on which to print the discoveries of\nscience.\n\n_Question_. In what section of the country do you find the most\nliberality?\n\n_Answer_. I find great freedom of thought in Boston, New York,\nChicago, San Francisco, in fact, all over what we call the North.\nThe West of course is liberal. The truth is that all the intelligent\npart of the country is liberal. The railroad, the telegraph, the\ndaily paper, electric light, the telephone, and freedom of thought\nbelong together.\n\n_Question_. Is it true that you were once threatened with a criminal\nprosecution for libel on religion?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, in Delaware. Chief Justice Comegys instructed the\ngrand jury to indict me for blasphemy. I have taken by revenge on\nthe State by leaving it in ignorance. Delaware is several centuries\nbehind the times. It is as bigoted as it is small. Compare Kansas\nCity with Wilmington and you will see the difference between\nliberalism and orthodoxy.\n\n_Question_. This is Washington's birthday. What do you think of\nGeneral Washington?\n\n_Answer_. I suppose that Washington was what was called religious.\nHe was not very strict in his conduct. He tried to have church\nand state united in Virginia and was defeated by Jefferson. It\nshould make no difference with us whether Washington was religious\nor not. Jefferson was by far the greater man. In intellect there\nwas no comparison between Washington and Franklin. I do not prove\nthe correctness of my ideas by names of dead people. I depend upon\nreason instead of gravestones. One fact is worth a cemetery full\nof distinguished corpses. We ask not for the belief of somebody,\nbut for evidence, for facts. The church is a beggar at the door\nof respectability. The moment a man becomes famous, the church\nasks him for a certificate that the Bible is true. It passes its\nhat before generals and presidents, and kings while they are alive.\nIt says nothing about thinkers and real philosophers while they\nlive, except to slander them, but the moment they are dead it seeks\namong their words for a crumb of comfort.\n\n_Question_. Will Liberalism ever organize in America?\n\n_Answer_. I hope not. Organization means creed, and creed means\npetrifaction and tyranny. I believe in individuality. I will not\njoin any society except an anti-society society.\n\n_Question_. Do you consider the religion of Bhagavat Purana of\nthe East as good as the Christian?\n\n_Answer_. It is far more poetic. It has greater variety and shows\nvastly more thought. Like the Hebrew, it is poisoned with\nsuperstition, but it has more beauty. Nothing can be more barren\nthan the theology of the Jews and Christians. One lonely God, a\nheaven filled with thoughtless angels, a hell with unfortunate\nsouls. Nothing can be more desolate. The Greek mythology is\ninfinitely better.\n\n_Question_. Do you think that the marriage institution is held in\nless respect by Infidels than by Christians?\n\n_Answer_. No; there was never a time when marriage was more believed\nin than now. Never were wives treated better and loved more; never\nwere children happier than now. It is the ambition of the average\nAmerican to have a good and happy home. The fireside was never\nmore popular than now.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of Beecher?\n\n_Answer_. He is a great man, but the habit of his mind and the\nbent of his early education oppose his heart. He is growing and\nhas been growing every day for many years. He has given up the\nidea of eternal punishment, and that of necessity destroys it all.\nThe Christian religion is founded upon hell. When the foundation\ncrumbles the fabric falls. Beecher was to have answered my article\nin the _North American Review_, but when it appeared and he saw\nit, he agreed with so much of it that he concluded that an answer\nwould be useless.\n\n--_The Times_, Kansas City, Missouri, February 23, 1884.\n\n\nREPLY TO KANSAS CITY CLERGY.\n\n_Question_. Will you take any notice of Mr. Magrath's challenge?\n\n_Answer_. I do not think it worth while to discuss with Mr. Magrath.\nI do not say this in disparagement of his ability, as I do not know\nthe gentleman. He may be one of the greatest of men. I think,\nhowever, that Mr. Magrath might better answer what I have already\nsaid. If he succeeds in that, then I will meet him in public\ndiscussion. Of course he is an eminent theologian or he would not\nthink of discussing these questions with anybody. I have never\nheard of him, but for all that he may be the most intelligent of\nmen.\n\n_Question_. How have the recently expressed opinions of our local\nclergy impressed you?\n\n_Answer_. I suppose you refer to the preachers who have given\ntheir opinion of me. In the first place I am obliged to them for\nacting as my agents. I think Mr. Hogan has been imposed upon.\nTacitus is a poor witness--about like Josephus. I say again that\nwe have not a word about Christ written by any human being who\nlived in the time of Christ--not a solitary word, and Mr. Hogan\nought to know it.\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Matthews is mistaken. If the Bible proves anything,\nit proves that the world was made in six days and that Adam and\nEve were built on Saturday. The Bible gives the age of Adam when\nhe died, and then gives the ages of others down to the flood, and\nthen from that time at least to the return from the captivity. If\nthe genealogy of the Bible is true it is about six thousand years\nsince Adam was made, and the world is only five days older than\nAdam. It is nonsense to say that the days were long periods of\ntime. If that is so, away goes the idea of Sunday. The only reason\nfor keeping Sunday given in the Bible is that God made the world\nin six days and rested on the seventh. Mr. Mathews is not candid.\nHe knows that he cannot answer the arguments I have urged against\nthe Bible. He knows that the ancient Jews were barbarians, and\nthat the Old Testament is a barbarous book. He knows that it\nupholds slavery and polygamy, and he probably feels ashamed of what\nhe is compelled to preach.\n\nMr. Jardine takes a very cheerful view of the subject. He expects\nthe light to dawn on the unbelievers. He speaks as though he were\nthe superior of all Infidels. He claims to be a student of the\nevidences of Christianity. There are no evidences, consequently\nMr. Jardine is a student of nothing. It is amazing how dignified\nsome people can get on a small capital.\n\nMr. Haley has sense enough to tell the ministers not to attempt to\nanswer me. That is good advice. The ministers had better keep\nstill. It is the safer way. If they try to answer what I say,\nthe \"sheep\" will see how foolish the \"shepherds\" are. The best\nway is for them to say, \"that has been answered.\"\n\nMr. Wells agrees with Mr. Haley. He, too, thinks that silence is\nthe best weapon. I agree with him. Let the clergy keep still;\nthat is the best way. It is better to say nothing than to talk\nabsurdity. I am delighted to think that at last the ministers have\nconcluded that they had better not answer Infidels.\n\nMr. Woods is fearful only for the young. He is afraid that I will\nhurt the children. He thinks that the mother ought to stoop over\nthe cradle and in the ears of the babe shout, Hell! So he thinks\nin all probability that the same word ought to be repeated at the\ngrave as a consolation to mourners.\n\nI am glad that Mr. Mann thinks that I am doing neither good nor\nharm. This gives me great hope. If I do no harm, certainly I\nought not to be eternally damned. It is very consoling to have an\northodox minister solemnly assert that I am doing no harm. I wish\nI could say as much for him.\n\nThe truth is, all these ministers have kept back their real thoughts.\nThey do not tell their doubts--they know that orthodoxy is doomed\n--they know that the old doctrine excites laughter and scorn. They\nknow that the fires of hell are dying out; that the Bible is ceasing\nto be an authority; and that the pulpit is growing feebler and\nfeebler every day. Poor parsons!\n\n_Question_. Would the Catholicism of General Sherman's family\naffect his chances for the presidency?\n\n_Answer_. I do not think the religion of the family should have\nany weight one way or the other. It would make no difference with\nme; although I hate Catholicism with all my heart, I do not hate\nCatholics. Some people might be so prejudiced that they would not\nvote for a man whose wife belongs to the Catholic Church; but such\npeople are too narrow to be consulted. General Sherman says that\nhe wants no office. In that he shows his good sense. He is a\ngreat man and a great soldier. He has won laurels enough for one\nbrow. He has the respect and admiration of the nation, and does\nnot need the presidency to finish his career. He wishes to enjoy\nthe honors he has won and the rest he deserves.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of Matthew Arnold?\n\n_Answer_. He is a man of talent, well educated, a little fussy,\nsomewhat sentimental, but he is not a genius. He is not creative.\nHe is a critic--not an originator. He will not compare with\nEmerson.\n\n--_The Journal_, Kansas City, Missouri, February 23, 1884.\n\n\nSWEARING AND AFFIRMING.\n\n_Question_. What is the difference in the parliamentary oath of\nthis country which saves us from such a squabble as they have had\nin England over the Bradlaugh case?\n\n_Answer_. Our Constitution provides that a member of Congress may\nswear or affirm. The consequence is that we can have no such\ncontroversy as they have had in England. The framers of our\nConstitution wished forever to divorce church and state. They knew\nthat it made no possible difference whether a man swore or affirmed,\nor whether he swore and affirmed to support the Constitution. All\nthe Federal officers who went into the Rebellion had sworn or affirmed\nto support the Constitution. All that did no good. The entire\noath business is a mistake. I think it would be a thousand times\nbetter to abolish all oaths in courts of justice. The oath allows\na rascal to put on the garments of solemnity, the mask of piety,\nwhile he tells a lie. In other words, the oath allows the villain\nto give falsehood the appearance of truth. I think it would be\nfar better to let each witness tell his story and leave his evidence\nto the intelligence of the jury and judge. The trouble about an\noath is that its tendency is to put all witnesses on an equality;\nthe jury says, \"Why, he swore to it.\" Now, if the oath were\nabolished, the jury would judge all testimony according to the\nwitness, and then the evidence of one man of good reputation would\noutweigh the lies of thousands of nobodies.\n\nIt was at one time believed that there was something miraculous in\nthe oath, that it was a kind of thumbscrew that would torture the\ntruth out of a rascal, and at one time they believed that if a man\nswore falsely he might be struck by lightning or paralyzed. But\nso many people have sworn to lies without having their health\nimpaired that the old superstition has very little weight with the\naverage witness. I think it would be far better to let every man\ntell his story; let him be cross-examined, let the jury find out\nas much as they can of his character, of his standing among his\nneighbors--then weigh his testimony in the scale of reason. The\noath is born of superstition, and everything born of superstition\nis bad. The oath gives the lie currency; it gives it for the moment\nthe ring of true metal, and the ordinary average juror is imposed\nupon and justice in many instances defeated. Nothing can be more\nabsurd than the swearing of a man to support the Constitution.\nLet him do what he likes. If he does not support the Constitution,\nthe probability is that his constituents will refuse to support\nhim. Every man who swears to support the Constitution swears to\nsupport it as he understands it, and no two understand it exactly\nalike. Now, if the oath brightened a man's intellect or added to\nhis information or increased his patriotism or gave him a little\nmore honesty, it would be a good thing--but it doesn't. And as a\nconsequence it is a very useless and absurd proceeding. Nothing\namuses me more in a court than to see one calf kissing the tanned\nskin of another.\n\n--_The Courier_, Buffalo, New York, May 19, 1884.\n\n\nREPLY TO A BUFFALO CRITIC.\n\n_Question_. What have you to say in reply to the letter in to-\nday's _Times_ signed R. H. S.?\n\n_Answer_. I find that I am accused of \"four flagrant wrongs,\" and\nwhile I am not as yet suffering from the qualms of conscience, nor\ndo I feel called upon to confess and be forgiven, yet I have\nsomething to say in self-defence.\n\nAs to the first objection made by your correspondent, namely, that\nmy doctrine deprives people of the hope that after this life is\nended they will meet their fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers,\nlong since passed away, in the land beyond the grave, and there\nenjoy their company forever, I have this to say: If Christianity\nis true we are not quite certain of meeting our relatives and\nfriends where we can enjoy their company forever. If Christianity\nis true most of our friends will be in hell. The ones I love best\nand whose memory I cherish will certainly be among the lost. The\ntrouble about Christianity is that it is infinitely selfish. Each\nman thinks that if he can save his own little, shriveled, microscopic\nsoul, that is enough. No matter what becomes of the rest.\nChristianity has no consolation for a generous man. I do not wish\nto go to heaven if the ones who have given me joy are to be lost.\nI would much rather go with them. The only thing that makes life\nendurable in this world is human love, and yet, according to\nChristianity, that is the very thing we are not to have in the\nother world. We are to be so taken up with Jesus and the angels,\nthat we shall care nothing about our brothers and sisters that have\nbeen damned. We shall be so carried away with the music of the\nharp that we shall not even hear the wail of father or mother.\nSuch a religion is a disgrace to human nature.\n\nAs to the second objection,--that society cannot be held together\nin peace and good order without hell and a belief in eternal torment,\nI would ask why an infinitely wise and good God should make people\nof so poor and mean a character that society cannot be held together\nwithout scaring them. Is it possible that God has so made the\nworld that the threat of eternal punishment is necessary for the\npreservation of society?\n\nThe writer of the letter also says that it is necessary to believe\nthat if a man commits murder here he is destined to be punished in\nhell for the offence. This is Christianity. Yet nearly every\nmurderer goes directly from the gallows to God. Nearly every\nmurderer takes it upon himself to lecture the assembled multitude\nwho have gathered to see him hanged, and invite them to meet him\nin heaven. When the rope is about his neck he feels the wings\ngrowing. That is the trouble with the Christian doctrine. Every\nmurderer is told he may repent and go to heaven, and have the\nhappiness of seeing his victim in hell. Should heaven at any time\nbecome dull, the vein of pleasure can be re-thrilled by the sight\nof his victim wriggling on the gridiron of God's justice. Really,\nChristianity leads men to sin on credit. It sells rascality on\ntime and tells all the devils they can have the benefit of the\ngospel bankrupt act.\n\nThe next point in the letter is that I do not preach for the benefit\nof mankind, but for the money which is the price of blood. Of\ncourse it makes no difference whether I preach for money or not.\nThat is to say, it makes no difference to the preached. The\narguments I advance are either good or bad. If they are bad they\ncan easily be answered by argument. If they are not they cannot\nbe answered by personalities or by ascribing to me selfish motives.\nIt is not a personal matter. It is a matter of logic, of sense--\nnot a matter of slander, vituperation or hatred. The writer of\nthe letter, R. H. S., may be an exceedingly good person, yet that\nwill add no weight to his or her argument. He or she may be a very\nbad person, but that would not weaken the logic of the letter, if\nit had any logic to begin with. It is not for me to say what my\nmotives are in what I do or say; it must be left to the judgment\nof mankind. I presume I am about as bad as most folks, and as good\nas some, but my goodness or badness has nothing to do with the\nquestion. I may have committed every crime in the world, yet that\ndoes not make the story of the flood reasonable, nor does it even\ntend to show that the three gentlemen in the furnace were not\nscorched. I may be the best man in the world, yet that does not\ngo to prove that Jonah was swallowed by the whale. Let me say\nright here that if there is another world I believe that every soul\nwho finds the way to that shore will have an everlasting opportunity\nto do right--of reforming. My objection to Christianity is that\nit is infinitely cruel, infinitely selfish, and I might add infinitely\nabsurd. I deprive no one of any hope unless you call the expectation\nof eternal pain a hope.\n\n_Question_. Have you read the Rev. Father Lambert's \"Notes on\nIngersoll,\" and if so, what have you to say of them or in reply to\nthem?\n\n_Answer_. I have read a few pages or paragraphs of that pamphlet,\nand do not feel called upon to say anything. Mr. Lambert has the\nsame right to publish his ideas that I have, and the readers must\njudge. People who believe his way will probably think that he has\nsucceeded in answering me. After all, he must leave the public to\ndecide. I have no anxiety about the decision. Day by day the\npeople are advancing, and in a little while the sacred superstitions\nof to-day will be cast aside with the foolish myths and fables of\nthe pagan world.\n\nAs a matter of fact there can be no argument in favor of the\nsupernatural. Suppose you should ask if I had read the work of\nthat gentleman who says that twice two are five. I should answer\nyou that no gentleman can prove that twice two are five; and yet\nthis is exactly as easy as to prove the existence of the supernatural.\nThere are no arguments in favor of the supernatural. There are\ntheories and fears and mistakes and prejudices and guesses, but no\narguments--plenty of faith, but no facts; plenty of divine revelation,\nbut no demonstration. The supernatural, in my judgment, is a\nmistake. I believe in the natural.\n\n--_The Times_, Buffalo, New York, May 19, 1884.\n\n\nBLASPHEMY.*\n\n[* \"If Robert G. Ingersoll indulges in blasphemy to-night in his\nlecture, as he has in other places and in this city before, he\nwill be arrested before he leaves the city.\" So spoke Rev. Irwin\nH. Torrence, General Secretary of the Pennsylvania Bible Society,\nyesterday afternoon to a _Press_ reporter. \"We have consulted\ncounsel; the law is with us, and Ingersoll has but to do what he\nhas done before, to find himself in a cell. Here is the act of\nMarch 31, 1860:\n\n\"'If any person shall willfully, premeditatedly and despitefully\nblaspheme or speak loosely and profanely of Almighty God, Christ\nJesus, the Holy Spirit, or the Scriptures of Truth, such person,\non conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding\none hundred dollars, and undergo an imprisonment not exceeding\nthree months, or either, at the discretion of the court.'\"\n\nLast evening Colonel Ingersoll sat in the dining room at Guy's\nHotel, just in from New York City. When told of the plans of Mr.\nTorrence and his friends, he laughed and said: ]\n\nI did not suppose that anybody was idiotic enough to want me arrested\nfor blasphemy. It seems to me that an infinite Being can take care\nof himself without the aid of any agent of a Bible society. Perhaps\nit is wrong for me to be here while the Methodist Conference is in\nsession. Of course no one who differs from the Methodist ministers\nshould ever visit Philadelphia while they are here. I most humbly\nhope to be forgiven.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the law of 1860?\n\n_Answer_. It is exceedingly foolish. Surely, there is no need\nfor the Legislature of Pennsylvania to protect an infinite God,\nand why should the Bible be protected by law? The most ignorant\npriest can hold Darwin up to orthodox scorn. This talk of the Rev.\nMr. Torrence shows that my lectures are needed; that religious\npeople do not know what real liberty is. I presume that the law\nof 1860 is an old one re-enacted. It is a survival of ancient\nignorance and bigotry, and no one in the Legislature thought it\nworth while to fight it. It is the same as the law against swearing,\nboth are dead letters and amount to nothing. They are not enforced\nand should not be. Public opinion will regulate such matters. If\nall who take the name of God in vain were imprisoned there would\nnot be room in the jails to hold the ministers. They speak of God\nin the most flippant and snap-your-fingers way that can be conceived\nof. They speak to him as though he were an intimate chum, and\nmetaphorically slap him on the back in the most familiar way\npossible.\n\n_Question_. Have you ever had any similar experiences before?\n\n_Answer_. Oh, yes--threats have been made, but I never was arrested.\nWhen Mr. Torrence gets cool he will see that he has made a mistake.\nPeople in Philadelphia have been in the habit of calling the citizens\nof Boston bigots--but there is more real freedom of thought and\nexpression in Boston than in almost any other city of the world.\nI think that as I am to suffer in hell forever, Mr. Torrence ought\nto be satisfied and let me have a good time here. He can amuse\nhimself through all eternity by seeing me in hell, and that ought\nto be enough to satisfy, not only an agent, but the whole Bible\nsociety. I never expected any trouble in this State, and most\nsincerely hope that Mr. Torrence will not trouble me and make the\ncity a laughing stock.\n\nPhiladelphia has no time to waste in such foolish things. Let the\nBible take its chances with other books. Let everybody feel that\nhe has the right freely to express his opinions, provided he is\ndecent and kind about it. Certainly the Christians now ought to\ntreat Infidels as well as Penn did Indians.\n\nNothing could be more perfectly idiotic than in this day and\ngeneration to prosecute any man for giving his conclusions upon\nany religious subject. Mr. Torrence would have had Huxley and\nHaeckel and Tyndall arrested; would have had Humboldt and John\nStuart Mill and Harriet Martineau and George Eliot locked up in the\ncity jail. Mr. Torrence is a fossil from the old red sandstone of\na mistake. Let him rest. To hear these people talk you would\nsuppose that God is some petty king, some Liliputian prince, who\nwas about to be dethroned, and who was nearly wild for recruits.\n\n_Question_. But what would you do if they should make an attempt\nto arrest you?\n\n_Answer_. Nothing, except to defend myself in court.\n\n--_Philadelphia Press_, May 24, 1884.\n\n\nPOLITICS AND BRITISH COLUMBIA.\n\n_Question_. I understand that there was some trouble in connection\nwith your lecture in Victoria, B. C. What are the facts?\n\n_Answer_. The published accounts, as circulated by the Associated\nPress, were greatly exaggerated. The affair was simply this: The\nauthorities endeavored to prevent the lecture. They refused the\nlicense, on the ground that the theatre was unsafe, although it\nwas on the ground floor, had many exits and entrances, not counting\nthe windows. The theatre was changed to meet the objections of\nthe fire commissioner, and the authorities expressed their satisfaction\nand issued the license. Afterward further objection was raised,\nand on the night of the lecture, when the building was about two-\nthirds full, the police appeared and said that the lecture would\nnot be allowed to be delivered, because the house was unsafe.\nAfter a good deal of talk, the policeman in authority said that\nthere should be another door, whereupon my friends, in a few minutes,\nmade another door with an ax and a saw, the crowd was admitted and\nthe lecture was delivered. The audience was well-behaved, intelligent\nand appreciative. Beyond some talking in the hall, and the natural\nindignation of those who had purchased tickets and were refused\nadmittance, there was no disturbance. I understand that those who\nopposed the lecture are now heartily ashamed of the course pursued.\n\n_Question_. Are you going to take any part in the campaign?\n\n_Answer_. It is not my intention to make any political speeches.\nI have made a good many in the past, and, in my judgment, have done\nmy part. I have no other interest in politics than every citizen\nshould have. I want that party to triumph which, in my judgment,\nrepresents the best interests of the country. I have no doubt\nabout the issue of the election. I believe that Mr. Blaine will\nbe the next President. But there are plenty of talkers, and I\nreally think that I have earned a vacation.\n\n_Question_. What do you think Cleveland's chances are in New York?\n\n_Answer_. At this distance it is hard to say. The recent action\nof Tammany complicates matters somewhat. But my opinion is that\nBlaine will carry the State. I had a letter yesterday from that\nState, giving the opinion of a gentleman well informed, that Blaine\nwould carry New York by no less than fifty thousand majority.\n\n_Question_. What figure will Butler cut in the campaign?\n\n_Answer_. I hardly think that Butler will have many followers on\nthe 4th of November. His forces will gradually go to one side or\nthe other. It is only when some great principle is at stake that\nthousands of men are willing to vote with a known minority.\n\n_Question_. But what about the Prohibitionists?\n\n_Answer_. They have a very large following. They are fighting\nfor something they believe to be of almost infinite consequence,\nand I can readily understand how a Prohibitionist is willing to be\nin the minority. It may be well enough for me to say here, that\nmy course politically is not determined by my likes or dislikes of\nindividuals. I want to be governed by principles, not persons.\nIf I really thought that in this campaign a real principle was at\nstake, I should take part. The only great question now is protection,\nand I am satisfied that it is in no possible danger.\n\n_Question_. Not even in the case of a Democratic victory?\n\n_Answer_. Not even in the event of a Democratic victory. No State\nin the Union is for free trade. Every free trader has an exception.\nThese exceptions combined, control the tariff legislation of this\ncountry, and if the Democrats were in power to-day, with the control\nof the House and Senate and Executive, the exceptions would combine\nand protect protection. As long as the Federal Government collects\ntaxes or revenue on imports, just so long these revenues will be\narranged to protect home manufactures.\n\n_Question_. You said that if there were a great principle at stake,\nyou would take part in the campaign. You think, then, that there\nis no great principle involved?\n\n_Answer_. If it were a matter of personal liberty, I should take\npart. If the Republican party had stood by the Civil Rights Bill,\nI should have taken part in the present campaign.\n\n_Question_. Still, I suppose we can count on you as a Republican?\n\n_Answer_. Certainly, I am a Republican.\n\n--_Evening Post_, San Francisco, California, September 16, 1884.\n\n\nINGERSOLL CATECHISED.\n\n_Question_. Does Christianity advance or retard civilization?\n\n_Answer_. If by Christianity you mean the orthodox church, then\nI unhesitatingly answer that it does retard civilization, always\nhas retarded it, and always will. I can imagine no man who can be\nbenefitted by being made a Catholic or a Presbyterian or a Baptist\nor a Methodist--or, in other words, by being made an orthodox\nChristian. But by Christianity I do not mean morality, kindness,\nforgiveness, justice. Those virtues are not distinctively Christian.\nThey are claimed by Mohammedans and Buddhists, by Infidels and\nAtheists--and practiced by some of all classes. Christianity\nconsists of the miraculous, the marvelous, and the impossible.\n\nThe one thing that I most seriously object to in Christianity is\nthe doctrine of eternal punishment. That doctrine subverts every\nidea of justice. It teaches the infinite absurdity that a finite\noffence can be justly visited by eternal punishment. Another\nserious objection I have is, that Christianity endeavors to destroy\nintellectual liberty. Nothing is better calculated to retard\ncivilization than to subvert the idea of justice. Nothing is better\ncalculated to retain barbarism than to deny to every human being\nthe right to think. Justice and Liberty are the two wings that\nbear man forward. The church, for a thousand years, did all within\nits power to prevent the expression of honest thought; and when\nthe church had power, there was in this world no civilization. We\nhave advanced just in the proportion that Christianity has lost\npower. Those nations in which the church is still powerful are\nstill almost savage--Portugal, Spain, and many others I might name.\nProbably no country is more completely under the control of the\nreligious idea than Russia. The Czar is the direct representative\nof God. He is the head of the church, as well as of the state.\nIn Russia every mouth is a bastille and every tongue a convict.\nThis Russian pope, this representative of God, has on earth his\nhell (Siberia), and he imitates the orthodox God to the extent of\nhis health and strength.\n\nEverywhere man advances as the church loses power. In my judgment,\nIreland can never succeed until it ceases to be Catholic; and there\ncan be no successful uprising while the confessional exists. At\none time in New England the church had complete power. There was\nthen no religious liberty. And so we might make a tour of the\nworld, and find that superstition always has been, is, and forever\nwill be, inconsistent with human advancement.\n\n_Question_. Do not the evidences of design in the universe prove\na Creator?\n\n_Answer_. If there were any evidences of design in the universe,\ncertainly they would tend to prove a designer, but they would not\nprove a Creator. Design does not prove creation. A man makes a\nmachine. That does not prove that he made the material out of\nwhich the machine is constructed. You find the planets arranged\nin accordance with what you call a plan. That does not prove that\nthey were created. It may prove that they are governed, but it\ncertainly does not prove that they were created. Is it consistent\nto say that a design cannot exist without a designer, but that a\ndesigner can? Does not a designer need a design as much as a design\nneeds a designer? Does not a Creator need a Creator as much as\nthe thing we think has been created? In other words, is not this\nsimply a circle of human ignorance? Why not say that the universe\nhas existed from eternity, as well as to say that a Creator has\nexisted from eternity? And do you not thus avoid at least one\nabsurdity by saying that the universe has existed from eternity,\ninstead of saying that it was created by a Creator who existed from\neternity? Because if your Creator existed from eternity, and\ncreated the universe, there was a time when he commenced; and back\nof that, according to Shelley, is \"an eternity of idleness.\"\n\nSome people say that God existed from eternity, and has created\neternity. It is impossible to conceive of an act co-equal with\neternity. If you say that God has existed forever, and has always\nacted, then you make the universe eternal, and you make the universe\nas old as God; and if the universe be as old as God, he certainly\ndid not create it.\n\nThese questions of origin and destiny--of infinite gods--are beyond\nthe powers of the human mind. They cannot be solved. We might as\nwell try to travel fast enough to get beyond the horizon. It is\nlike a man trying to run away from his girdle. Consequently, I\nbelieve in turning our attention to things of importance--to\nquestions that may by some possibility be solved. It is of no\nimportance to me whether God exists or not. I exist, and it is\nimportant to me to be happy while I exist. Therefore I had better\nturn my attention to finding out the secret of happiness, instead\nof trying to ascertain the secret of the universe.\n\nI say with regard to God, I do not know; and therefore I am accused\nof being arrogant and egotistic. Religious papers say that I do\nknow, because Webster told me. They use Webster as a witness to\nprove the divinity of Christ. They say that Webster was on the\nGod side, and therefore I ought to be. I can hardly afford to take\nWebster's ideas of another world, when his ideas about this were\nso bad. When bloodhounds were pursuing a woman through the tangled\nswamps of the South--she hungry for liberty--Webster took the side\nof the bloodhounds. Such a man is no authority for me. Bacon\ndenied the Copernican system of astronomy; he is an unsafe guide.\nWesley believed in witches; I cannot follow him. No man should\nquote a name instead of an argument; no man should bring forward\na person instead of a principle, unless he is willing to accept\nall the ideas of that person.\n\n_Question_. Is not a pleasant illusion preferable to a dreary\ntruth--a future life being in question?\n\n_Answer_. I think it is. I think that a pleasing illusion is\nbetter then a terrible truth, so far as its immediate results are\nconcerned. I would rather think the one I love living, than to\nthink her dead. I would rather think that I had a large balance\nin bank than that my account was overdrawn. I would rather think\nI was healthy than to know that I had a cancer. But if we have an\nillusion, let us have it pleasing. The orthodox illusion is the\nworst that can possibly be conceived. Take hell out of that\nillusion, take eternal pain away from that dream, and say that the\nwhole world is to be happy forever--then you might have an excuse\nfor calling it a pleasant illusion; but it is, in fact, a nightmare\n--a perpetual horror--a cross, on which the happiness of man has\nbeen crucified.\n\n_Question_. Are not religion and morals inseparable?\n\n_Answer_. Religion and morality have nothing in common, and yet\nthere is no religion except the practice of morality. But what\nyou call religion is simply superstition. Religion as it is now\ntaught teaches our duties toward God--our obligations to the\nInfinite, and the results of a failure to discharge those obligations.\nI believe that we are under no obligations to the Infinite; that\nwe cannot be. All our obligations are to each other, and to sentient\nbeings. \"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be\nsaved,\" has nothing to do with morality. \"Do unto other as ye\nwould that others should do unto you\" has nothing to do with\nbelieving in the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism has nothing to do with\nmorality. \"Pay your honest debts.\" That has nothing to do with\nbaptism. What is called religion is simple superstition, with\nwhich morality has nothing to do.\n\nThe churches do not prevent people from committing natural offences,\nbut restrain them from committing artificial ones. As for instance,\nthe Catholic Church can prevent one of its members from eating meat\non Friday, but not from whipping his wife. The Episcopal Church\ncan prevent dancing, it may be, in Lent, but not slander. The\nPresbyterian can keep a man from working on Sunday, but not from\npracticing deceit on Monday. And so I might go through the churches.\nThey lay the greater stress upon the artificial offences. Those\ncountries that are the most religious are the most immoral. When\nthe world was under the control of the Catholic Church, it reached\nthe very pit of immorality, and nations have advanced in morals\njust in proportion that they have lost Christianity.\n\n_Question_. It is frequently asserted that there is nothing new\nin your objections against Christianity. What is your reply to\nsuch assertions?\n\n_Answer_. Of course, the editors of religious papers will say\nthis; Christians will say this. In my opinion, an argument is new\nuntil it has been answered. An argument is absolutely fresh, and\nhas upon its leaves the dew of morning, until it has been refuted.\nAll men have experienced, it may be, in some degree, what we call\nlove. Millions of men have written about it. The subject is of\ncourse old. It is only the presentation that can be new. Thousands\nof men have attacked superstition. The subject is old, but the\nmanner in which the facts are handled, the arguments grouped--these\nmay be forever new. Millions of men have preached Christianity.\nCertainly there is nothing new in the original ideas. Nothing can\nbe new except the presentation, the grouping. The ideas may be\nold, but they may be clothed in new garments of passion; they may\nbe given additional human interest. A man takes a fact, or an old\nsubject, as a sculptor takes a rock; the rock is not new. Of this\nrock he makes a statue; the statue is new. And yet some orthodox\nman might say there is nothing new about that statue: \"I know the\nman that dug the rock; I know the owner of the quarry.\" Substance\nis eternal; forms are new. So in the human mind certain ideas, or\nin the human heart certain passions, are forever old; but genius\nforever gives them new forms, new meanings; and this is the perpetual\noriginality of genius.\n\n_Question_. Do you consider that churches are injurious to the\ncommunity?\n\n_Answer_. In the exact proportion that churches teach falsehood;\nin the exact proportion that they destroy liberty of thought, the\nfree action of the human mind; in the exact proportion that they\nteach the doctrine of eternal pain, and convince people of its\ntruth--they are injurious. In the proportion that they teach\nmorality and justice, and practice kindness and charity--in that\nproportion they are a benefit. Every church, therefore, is a mixed\nproblem--part good and part bad. In one direction it leads toward\nand sheds light; in the other direction its influence is entirely\nbad.\n\nNow, I would like to civilize the churches, so that they will be\nable to do good deeds without building bad creeds. In other words,\ntake out the superstitious and the miraculous, and leave the human\nand the moral.\n\n_Question_. Why do you not respond to the occasional clergyman\nwho replies to your lectures?\n\n_Answer_. In the first place, no clergyman has ever replied to my\nlectures. In the second place, no clergyman ever will reply to my\nlectures. He does not answer my arguments--he attacks me; and the\nreplies that I have seen are not worth answering. They are far\nbelow the dignity of the question under discussion. Most of them\nare ill-mannered, as abusive as illogical, and as malicious as\nweak. I cannot reply without feeling humiliated. I cannot use\ntheir weapons, and my weapons they do not understand. I attack\nChristianity because it is cruel, and they account for all my\nactions by putting behind them base motives. They make it at once\na personal question. They imagine that epithets are good enough\narguments with which to answer an Infidel. A few years ago they\nwould have imprisoned me. A few years before that they would have\nburned me. We have advanced. Now they only slander; and I\ncongratulate myself on the fact that even that is not believed.\nMinisters do not believe each other about each other. The truth\nhas never yet been ascertained in any trial by a church. The longer\nthe trial lasts, the obscurer is the truth. They will not believe\neach other, even on oath; and one of the most celebrated ministers\nof this country has publicly announced that there is no use in\nanswering a lie started by his own church; that if he does answer\nit--if he does kill it--forty more lies will come to the funeral.\n\nIn this connection we must remember that the priests of one religion\nnever credit the miracles of another religion. Is this because\npriests instinctively know priests? Now, when a Christian tells\na Buddhist some of the miracles of the Testament, the Buddhist\nsmiles. When a Buddhist tells a Christian the miracles performed\nby Buddha, the Christian laughs. This reminds me of an incident.\nA man told a most wonderful story. Everybody present expressed\nsurprise and astonishment, except one man. He said nothing; he\ndid not even change countenance. One who noticed that the story\nhad no effect on this man, said to him: \"You do not seem to be\nastonished in the least at this marvelous tale.\" The man replied,\n\"No; I am a liar myself.\"\n\nYou see, I am not trying to answer individual ministers. I am\nattacking the whole body of superstition. I am trying to kill the\nentire dog, and I do not feel like wasting any time killing fleas\non that dog. When the dog dies, the fleas will be out of provisions,\nand in that way we shall answer them all at once.\n\nSo, I do not bother myself answering religious newspapers. In the\nfirst place, they are not worth answering; and in the second place,\nto answer would only produce a new crop of falsehoods. You know,\nthe editor of a religious newspaper, as a rule, is one who has\nfailed in the pulpit; and you can imagine the brains necessary to\nedit a religious weekly from this fact. I have known some good\nreligious editors. By some I mean one. I do not say that there\nare not others, but I do say I do not know them. I might add,\nhere, that the one I did know is dead.\n\nSince I have been in this city there have been some \"replies\" to\nme. They have been almost idiotic. A Catholic priest asked me\nhow I had the impudence to differ with Newton. Newton, he says,\nbelieved in a God; and I ask this Catholic priest how he has the\nimpudence to differ with Newton. Newton was a Protestant. This\nsimply shows the absurdity of using men's names for arguments.\nThis same priest proves the existence of God by a pagan orator.\nIs it possible that God's last witness died with Cicero? If it is\nnecessary to believe in a God now, the witnesses ought to be on\nhand now.\n\nAnother man, pretending to answer me, quotes Le Conte, a geologist;\nand according to this geologist we are \"getting very near to the\nsplendors of the great white throne.\" Where is the great white\nthrone? Can any one, by studying geology, find the locality of\nthe great white throne? To what stratum does it belong? In what\ngeologic period was the great white throne formed? What on earth\nhas geology to do with the throne of God?\n\nThe truth is, there can be no reply to the argument that man should\nbe governed by his reason; that he should depend upon observation\nand experience; that he should use the faculties he has for his\nown benefit, and the benefit of his fellow-man. There is no answer.\nIt is not within the power of man to substantiate the supernatural.\nIt is beyond the power of evidence.\n\n_Question_. Why do the theological seminaries find it difficult\nto get students?\n\n_Answer_. I was told last spring, at New Haven, that the \"theologs,\"\nas they call the young men there being fitted for the ministry,\nwere not regarded as intellectual by all the other students. The\northodox pulpit has no rewards for genius. It has rewards only for\nstupidity, for belief--not for investigation, not for thought; and\nthe consequence is that young men of talent avoid the pulpit. I\nthink I heard the other day that of all the students at Harvard\nonly nine are preparing for the ministry. The truth is, the ministry\nis not regarded as an intellectual occupation. The average church\nnow consists of women and children. Men go to please their wives,\nor stay at home and subscribe to please their wives; and the wives\nare beginning to think, and many of them are staying at home. Many\nof them now prefer the theatre or the opera or the park or the\nseashore or the forest or the companionship of their husbands and\nchildren at home.\n\n_Question_. How does the religious state of California compare\nwith the rest of the Union?\n\n_Answer_. I find that sensible people everywhere are about the\nsame, and the proportion of Freethinkers depends on the proportion\nof sensible folks. I think that California has her full share of\nsensible people. I find everywhere the best people and the brightest\npeople--the people with the most heart and the best brain--all\ntending toward free thought. Of course, a man of brain cannot\nbelieve the miracles of the Old and New Testaments. A man of heart\ncannot believe in the doctrine of eternal pain. We have found that\nother religions are like ours, with precisely the same basis, the\nsame idiotic miracles, the same Christ or Saviour. It will hardly\ndo to say that all others like ours are false, and ours the only\ntrue one, when others substantially like it are thousands of years\nolder. We have at last found that a religion is simply an effort\non the part of man to account for what he sees, what he experiences,\nwhat he feels, what he fears, and what he hopes. Every savage has\nhis philosophy. That is his religion and his science.\n\nThe religions of to-day are the sciences of the past; and it may\nbe that the sciences of to-day will be the religions of the future,\nand that other sciences will be as far beyond them as the science\nof to-day is beyond the religion of to-day. As a rule, religion\nis a sanctified mistake, and heresy a slandered fact. In other\nwords, the human mind grows--and as it grows it abandons the old,\nand the old gets its revenge by maligning the new.\n\n--_The San Franciscan_, San Francisco, October 4, 1884.\n\n\nBLAINE'S DEFEAT.\n\n_Question_. Colonel, the fact that you took no part in the late\ncampaign, is a subject for general comment, and knowing your former\nenthusiastic advocacy and support of Blaine, the people are somewhat\nsurprised, and would like to know why?\n\n_Answer_. In the first place, it was generally supposed that Blaine\nneeded no help. His friends were perfectly confident. They counted\non a very large Catholic support. The Irish were supposed to be\nspoiling to vote for Blaine and Logan. All the Protestant ministers\nwere also said to be solid for the ticket. Under these circumstances\nit was hardly prudent for me to say much.\n\nI was for Blaine in 1876. In 1880 I was for Garfield, and in 1884\nI was for Gresham or Harlan. I believed then and I believe now\nthat either one of these men could have been elected. Blaine is\nan exceedingly able man, but he made some mistakes and some very\nunfortunate utterances. I took no part in the campaign; first,\nbecause there was no very important issue, no great principle at\nstake, and second, I thought that I had done enough, and, third,\nbecause I wanted to do something else.\n\n_Question_. What, in your opinion, were the causes for Blaine's\ndefeat?\n\n_Answer_. First, because of dissension in the party. Second,\nbecause party ties have grown weak. Third, the Prohibition vote.\nFourth, the Delmonico dinner--too many rich men. Fifth, the Rev.\nDr. Burchard with his Rum, Romanism and Rebellion. Sixth, giving\ntoo much attention to Ohio and not enough to New York. Seventh,\nthe unfortunate remark of Mr. Blaine, that \"the State cannot get\nalong without the Church.\" Eighth, the weakness of the present\nadministration. Ninth, the abandonment by the party of the colored\npeople of the South. Tenth, the feeling against monopolies, and\nnot least, a general desire for a change.\n\n_Question_. What, in your opinion, will be the result of Cleveland's\nelection and administration upon the general political and business\ninterests of the country?\n\n_Answer_. The business interests will take care of themselves.\nA dollar has the instinct of self-preservation largely developed.\nThe tariff will take care of itself. No State is absolutely for\nfree trade. In each State there is an exception. The exceptions\nwill combine, as they always have. Michigan will help Pennsylvania\ntake care of iron, if Pennsylvania will help Michigan take care of\nsalt and lumber. Louisiana will help Pennsylvania and Michigan if\nthey help her take care of sugar. Colorado, California and Ohio\nwill help the other States if they will help them about wool--and\nso I might make a tour of the States, ending with Vermont and maple\nsugar. I do not expect that Cleveland will do any great harm.\nThe Democrats want to stay in power, and that desire will give\nsecurity for good behavior.\n\n_Question_. Will he listen to or grant any demands made of him by\nthe alleged Independent Republicans of New York, either in his\nappointments or policies?\n\n_Answer_. Of this I know nothing. The Independents--from what I\nknow of them--will be too modest to claim credit or to ask office.\nThey were actuated by pure principle. They did what they did to\npurify the party, so that they could stay in it. Now that it has\nbeen purified they will remain, and hate the Democratic party as\nbadly as ever. I hardly think that Cleveland would insult their\nmotives by offering loaves and fishes. All they desire is the\napproval of their own consciences.\n\n--_The Commonwealth_, Topeka, Kansas, November 21, 1884.\n\n\nBLAINE'S DEFEAT.\n\n_Question_. How do you account for the defeat of Mr. Blaine?\n\n_Answer_. How do I account for the defeat of Mr. Blaine? I will\nanswer: St. John, the Independents, Burchard, Butler and Cleveland\ndid it. The truth is that during the war a majority of the people,\ncounting those in the South, were opposed to putting down the\nRebellion by force. It is also true that when the Proclamation of\nEmancipation was issued a majority of the people, counting the\nwhole country, were opposed to it, and it is also true that when\nthe colored people were made citizens a majority of the people,\ncounting the whole country, were opposed to it.\n\nNow, while, in my judgment, an overwhelming majority of the whole\npeople have honestly acquiesced in the result of the war, and are\nnow perfectly loyal to the Union, and have also acquiesced in the\nabolition of slavery, I doubt very much whether they are really in\nfavor of giving the colored man the right to vote. Of course they\nhave not the power now to take that right away, but they feel\nanything but kindly toward the party that gave the colored man that\nright. That is the only result of the war that is not fully accepted\nby the South and by many Democrats of the North.\n\nAnother thing, the Republican party was divided--divided too by\npersonal hatreds. The party was greatly injured by the decision\nof the Supreme Court in which the Civil Rights Bill was held void.\nNow, a great many men who kept with the Republican party, did so\nbecause they believed that that party would protect the colored\nman in the South, but as soon as the Court decided that all the\nlaws passed were unconstitutional, these men felt free to vote for\nthe other side, feeling that it would make no difference. They\nreasoned this way: If the Republican party cannot defend the\ncolored people, why make a pretence that excites hatred on one side\nand disarms the other? If the colored people have to depend upon\nthe State for protection, and the Federal Government cannot interfere,\nwhy say any more about it?\n\nI think that these men made a mistake and our party made a mistake\nin accepting without protest a decision that was far worse than\nthe one delivered in the case of Dred Scott. By accepting this\ndecision the most important issue was abandoned. The Republican\nparty must take the old ground that it is the duty of the Federal\nGovernment to protect the citizens, and that it cannot simply leave\nthat duty to the State. It must see to it that the State performs\nthat duty.\n\n_Question_. Have you seen the published report that Dorsey claims\nto have paid you one hundred thousand dollars for your services in\nthe Star Route Cases?\n\n_Answer_. I have seen the report, but Dorsey never said anything\nlike that.\n\n_Question_. Is there no truth in the statement, then?\n\n_Answer_. Well, Dorsey never said anything of the kind.\n\n_Question_. Then you do not deny that you received such an enormous\nfee?\n\n_Answer_. All I say is that Dorsey did not say I did.*\n\n--_The Commercial_, Louisville, Kentucky, October 24, 1884.\n\n[* Col. Ingersoll has been so criticised and maligned for defending\nMr. Dorsey in the Star Route cases, and so frequently charged with\nhaving received an enormous fee, that I think it but simple justice\nto his memory to say that he received no such fee, and that the\nridiculously small sums he did receive were much more than offset\nby the amount he had to pay as indorser of Mr. Dorsey's paper.\n--C. F. FARRELL.]\n\n\nPLAGIARISM AND POLITICS.\n\n_Question_. What have you to say about the charges published in\nthis morning's _Herald_ to the effect that you copied your lecture\nabout \"Mistakes of Moses\" from a chapter bearing the same title in\na book called Hittell's \"Evidences against Christianity\"?\n\n_Answer_. All I have to say is that the charge is utterly false.\nI will give a thousand dollars reward to any one who will furnish\na book published before my lecture, in which that lecture can be\nfound. It is wonderful how malicious the people are who love their\nenemies. This charge is wholly false, as all others of like nature\nare. I do not have to copy the writings of others. The Christians\ndo not seem to see that they are constantly complimenting me by\nsaying that what I write is so good that I must have stolen it.\nPoor old orthodoxy!\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of the incoming administration,\nand how will it affect the country?\n\n_Answer_. I feel disposed to give Cleveland a chance. If he does\nthe fair thing, then it is the duty of all good citizens to say\nso. I do not expect to see the whole country go to destruction\nbecause the Democratic party is in power. Neither do I believe\nthat business is going to suffer on that account. The times are\nhard, and I fear will be much harder, but they would have been\nsubstantially the same if Blaine had been elected. I wanted the\nRepublican party to succeed and fully expected to see Mr. Blaine\nPresident, but I believe in making the best of what has happened.\nI want no office, I want good government--wise legislation. I\nbelieve in protection, but I want the present tariff reformed and\nI hope the Democrats will be wise enough to do so.\n\n_Question_. How will the Democratic victory affect the colored\npeople in the South?\n\n_Answer_. Certainly their condition will not be worse than it has\nbeen. The Supreme Court decided that the Civil Rights Bill was\nunconstitutional and that the Federal Government cannot interfere.\nThat was a bad decision and our party made a mistake in not protesting\nagainst it. I believe it to be the duty of the Federal Government\nto protect all its citizens, at home as well as abroad. My hope\nis that there will be a division in the Democratic party. That\nparty has something now to divide. At last it has a bone, and\nprobably the fighting will commence. I hope that some new issue\nwill take color out of politics, something about which both white\nand colored may divide. Of course nothing would please me better\nthan to see the Democratic party become great and grand enough to\ngive the colored people their rights.\n\n_Question_. Why did you not take part in the campaign?\n\n_Answer_. Well, I was afraid of frightening the preachers away.\nI might have done good by scaring one, but I did not know Burchard\nuntil it was too late. Seriously, I did not think that I was\nneeded. I supposed that Blaine had a walkover, that he was certain\nto carry New York. I had business of my own to attend to and did\nnot want to interfere with the campaign.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the policy of nominating Blaine\nin 1888, as has been proposed?\n\n_Answer_. I think it too early to say what will be done in 1888.\nParties do not exist for one man. Parties have certain ends in\nview and they choose men as instruments to accomplish these ends.\nParties belong to principles, not persons. No party can afford to\nfollow anybody. If in 1888 Mr. Blaine should appear to be the best\nman for the party then he will be nominated, otherwise not. I know\nnothing about any intention to nominate him again and have no idea\nwhether he has that ambition. The Whig party was intensely loyal\nto Henry Clay and forgot the needs of the country, and allowed the\nDemocrats to succeed with almost unknown men. Parties should not\nbelong to persons, but persons should belong to parties. Let us\nnot be too previous--let us wait.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the course pursued by the Rev.\nDrs. Ball and Burchard?\n\n_Answer_. In politics the preacher is somewhat dangerous. He has\na standard of his own; he has queer ideas of evidence, great reliance\non hearsay; he is apt to believe things against candidates, just\nbecause he wants to. The preacher thinks that all who differ with\nhim are instigated by the Devil--that their intentions are evil,\nand that when they behave themselves they are simply covering the\npoison with sugar. It would have been far better for the country\nif Mr. Ball had kept still. I do not pretend to say that his\nintentions were not good. He likely thought it his duty to lift\na warning voice, to bawl aloud and to spare not, but I think he\nmade a mistake, and he now probably thinks so himself. Mr. Burchard\nwas bound to say a smart thing. It sounded well, and he allowed\nhis ears to run away with his judgment. As a matter of fact, there\nis no connection between rum and Romanism. Catholic countries do\nnot use as much alcohol as Protestant. England has far more\ndrunkards than Spain. Scotland can discount Italy or Portugal in\ngood, square drinking. So there is no connection between Romanism\nand rebellion. Ten times as many Methodists and twenty times as\nmany Baptists went into the Rebellion as Catholics. Thousands of\nCatholics fought as bravely as Protestants for the preservation of\nthe Union. No doubt Mr. Burchard intended well. He thought he\nwas giving Blaine a battle-cry that would send consternation into\nthe hearts of the opposition. My opinion is that in the next\ncampaign the preachers will not be called to the front. Of course\nthey have the same right to express their views that other people\nhave, but other people have the right to avoid the responsibility\nof appearing to agree with them. I think though that it is about\ntime to let up on Burchard. He has already unloaded on the Lord.\n\n_Question_. Do you think Cleveland will put any Southern men in\nhis Cabinet?\n\n_Answer_. I do. Nothing could be in worse taste than to ignore\nthe section that gave him three-fourths of his vote. The people\nhave put the Democratic party in power. They intended to do what\nthey did, and why should the South not be recognized? Garland\nwould make a good Attorney-General; Lamar has the ability to fill\nany position in the Cabinet. I could name several others well\nqualified, and I suppose that two or three Southern men will be in\nthe Cabinet. If they are good enough to elect a President they\nare good enough to be selected by a President.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of Mr. Conkling's course?\n\n_Answer_. Mr. Conkling certainly had the right to keep still. He\nwas under no obligation to the party. The Republican papers have\nnot tried to secure his services. He has been very generally and\nliberally denounced ever since his quarrel with Mr. Garfield, and\nit is only natural to resent what a man feels to be an injustice.\nI suppose he has done what he honestly thought was, under the\ncircumstances, his duty. I believe him to be a man of stainless\nintegrity, and he certainly has as much independence of character\nas one man can carry. It is time to put the party whip away.\nPeople can be driven from, but not to, the Republican party. If we\nexpect to win in 1888 we must welcome recruits.\n\n--_The Plain Dealer_, Cleveland, Ohio, Dec. 11, 1884.\n\n\nRELIGIOUS PREJUDICE.\n\n_Question_. Will a time ever come when political campaigns will\nbe conducted independently of religious prejudice?\n\n_Answer_. As long as men are prejudiced, they will probably be\nreligious, and certainly as long as they are religious they will\nbe prejudiced, and every religionist who imagines the next world\ninfinitely more important than this, and who imagines that he gets\nhis orders from God instead of from his own reason, or from his\nfellow-citizens, and who thinks that he should do something for\nthe glory of God instead of for the benefit of his fellow-citizens\n--just as long as they believe these things, just so long their\nprejudices will control their votes. Every good, ignorant, orthodox\nChristian places his Bible above laws and constitutions. Every\ngood, sincere and ignorant Catholic puts pope above king and\npresident, as well as above the legally expressed will of a majority\nof his countrymen. Every Christian believes God to be the source\nof all authority. I believe that the authority to govern comes\nfrom the consent of the governed. Man is the source of power, and\nto protect and increase human happiness should be the object of\ngovernment. I think that religious prejudices are growing weaker\nbecause religious belief is growing weaker. And these prejudices\n--should men ever become really civilized--will finally fade away.\nI think that a Presbyterian, to-day, has no more prejudice against\nan Atheist than he has against a Catholic. A Catholic does not\ndislike an Infidel any more than he does a Presbyterian, and I\nbelieve, to-day, that most of the Presbyterians would rather see\nand Atheist President than a pronounced Catholic.\n\n_Question_. Is Agnosticism gaining ground in the United States?\n\n_Answer_. Of course, there are thousands and thousands of men who\nhave now advanced intellectually to the point of perceiving the\nlimit of human knowledge. In other words, at last they are beginning\nto know enough to know what can and cannot be known. Sensible men\nknow that nobody knows whether an infinite God exists or not.\nSensible men know that an infinite personality cannot, by human\ntestimony, be established. Sensible men are giving up trying to\nanswer the questions of origin and destiny, and are paying more\nattention to what happens between these questions--that is to say,\nto this world. Infidelity increases as knowledge increases, as\nfear dies, and as the brain develops. After all, it is a question\nof intelligence. Only cunning performs a miracle, only ignorance\nbelieves it.\n\n_Question_. Do you think that evolution and revealed religion are\ncompatible--that is to say, can a man be an evolutionist and a\nChristian?\n\n_Answer_. Evolution and Christianity may be compatible, provided\nyou take the ground that Christianity is only one of the links in\nthe chain, one of the phases of civilization. But if you mean by\nChristianity what is generally understood, of course that and\nevolution are absolutely incompatible. Christianity pretends to\nbe not only the truth, but, so far as religion is concerned, the\nwhole truth. Christianity pretends to give a history of religion\nand a prophecy of destiny. As a philosophy, it is an absolute\nfailure. As a history, it is false. There is no possible way by\nwhich Darwin and Moses can be harmonized. There is an inexpressible\nconflict between Christianity and Science, and both cannot long\ninhabit the same brain. You cannot harmonize evolution and the\natonement. The survival of the fittest does away with original sin.\n\n_Question_. From your knowledge of the religious tendency in the\nUnited States, how long will orthodox religion be popular?\n\n_Answer_. I do not think that orthodox religion is popular to-day.\nThe ministers dare not preach the creed in all its naked deformity\nand horror. They are endeavoring with the vines of sentiment to\ncover up the caves and dens in which crawl the serpents of their\ncreed. Very few ministers care now to speak of eternal pain. They\nleave out the lake of fire and brimstone. They are not fond of\nputting in the lips of Christ the loving words, \"Depart from me,\nye cursed.\" The miracles are avoided. In short, what is known as\northodoxy is already unpopular. Most ministers are endeavoring to\nharmonize what they are pleased to call science and Christianity,\nand nothing is now so welcome to the average Christian as some work\ntending to show that, after all, Joshua was an astronomer.\n\n_Question_. What section of the United States, East, West, North,\nor South, is the most advanced in liberal religious ideas?\n\n_Answer_. That section of the country in which there is the most\nintelligence is the most liberal. That section of the country\nwhere there is the most ignorance is the most prejudiced. The\nleast brain is the most orthodox. There possibly is no more\nprogressive city in the world, no more liberal, than Boston.\nChicago is full of liberal people. So is San Francisco. The brain\nof New York is liberal. Every town, every city, is liberal in the\nprecise proportion that it is intelligent.\n\n_Question_. Will the religion of humanity be the religion of the\nfuture?\n\n_Answer_. Yes; it is the only religion now. All other is\nsuperstition. What they call religion rests upon a supposed relation\nbetween man and God. In what they call religion man is asked to\ndo something for God. As God wants nothing, and can by no possibility\naccept anything, such a religion is simply superstition. Humanity\nis the only possible religion. Whoever imagines that he can do\nanything for God is mistaken. Whoever imagines that he can add to\nhis happiness in the next world by being useless in this, is also\nmistaken. And whoever thinks that any God cares how he cuts his\nhair or his clothes, or what he eats, or whether he fasts, or rings\na bell, or puts holy water on his breast, or counts beads, or shuts\nhis eyes and says words to the clouds, is laboring under a great\nmistake.\n\n_Question_. A man in the Swaim Court Martial case was excluded as\na witness because he was an Atheist. Do you think the law in the\nnext decade will permit the affirmative oath?\n\n_Answer_. If belief affected your eyes, your ears, any of your\nsenses, or your memory, then, of course, no man ought to be a\nwitness who had not the proper belief. But unless it can be shown\nthat Atheism interferes with the sight, the hearing, or the memory,\nwhy should justice shut the door to truth?\n\nIn most of the States of this Union I could not give testimony.\nShould a man be murdered before my eyes I could not tell a jury\nwho did it. Christianity endeavors to make an honest man an outlaw.\nChristianity has such a contemptible opinion of human nature that\nit does not believe a man can tell the truth unless frightened by\na belief in God. No lower opinion of the human race has ever been\nexpressed.\n\n_Question_. Do you think that bigotry would persecute now for\nreligious opinion's sake, if it were not for the law and the press?\n\n_Answer_. I think that the church would persecute to-day if it\nhad the power, just as it persecuted in the past. We are indebted\nfor nearly all our religious liberty to the hypocrisy of the church.\nThe church does not believe. Some in the church do, and if they\nhad the power, they would torture and burn as of yore. Give the\nPresbyterian Church the power, and it would not allow an Infidel\nto live. Give the Methodist Church the power and the result would\nbe the same. Give the Catholic Church the power--just the same.\nNo church in the United States would be willing that any other\nchurch should have the power. The only men who are to be angels\nin the next world are the ones who cannot be trusted with human\nliberty in this; and the man who are destined to live forever in\nhell are the only gentlemen with whom human liberty is safe. Why\nshould Christians refuse to persecute in this world, when their\nGod is going to in the next?\n\n--_Mail and Express_, New York, January 12, 1885.\n\n\nCLEVELAND AND HIS CABINET.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of Mr. Cleveland's Cabinet?\n\n_Answer_. It is a very good Cabinet. Some objections have been\nmade to Mr. Lamar, but I think he is one of the very best. He is\na man of ability, of unquestioned integrity, and is well informed\non national affairs. Ever since he delivered his eulogy on the\nlife and services of Sumner, I have had great respect for Mr. Lamar.\nHe is far beyond most of his constituents, and has done much to\ndestroy the provincial prejudices of Mississippi. He will without\ndoubt make an excellent Secretary of the Interior. The South has\nno better representative man, and I believe his appointment will,\nin a little while, be satisfactory to the whole country. Bayard\nstands high in his party, and will certainly do as well as his\nimmediate predecessor. Nothing could be better than the change in\nthe Department of Justice. Garland is an able lawyer, has been an\ninfluential Senator and will, in my judgment, make an excellent\nAttorney-General. The rest of the Cabinet I know little about,\nbut from what I hear I believe they are men of ability and that\nthey will discharge their duties well. Mr. Vilas has a great\nreputation in Wisconsin, and is one of the best and most forcible\nspeakers in the country.\n\n_Question_. Will Mr. Cleveland, in your opinion, carry out the\ncivil service reform he professes to favor?\n\n_Answer_. I have no reason to suspect even that he will not. He\nhas promised to execute the law, and the promise is in words that\ndo not admit of two interpretations. Of course he is sincere. He\nknows that this course will save him a world of trouble, and he\nknows that it makes no difference about the politics of a copyist.\nAll the offices of importance will in all probability be filled by\nDemocrats. The President will not put himself in the power of his\nopponents. If he is to be held responsible for the administration\nhe must be permitted to choose his own assistants. This is too\nplain to talk about. Let us give Mr. Cleveland a fair show--and\nlet us expect success instead of failure. I admit that many\nPresidents have violated their promises. There seems to be something\nin the atmosphere of Washington that breeds promise and prevents\nperformance. I suppose it is some kind of political malarial\nmicrobe. I hope that some political Pasteur will, one of these\ndays, discover the real disease so that candidates can be vaccinated\nduring the campaign. Until them, presidential promises will be\nliable to a discount.\n\n_Question_. Is the Republican party dead?\n\n_Answer_. My belief is that the next President will be a Republican,\nand that both houses will be Republican in 1889. Mr. Blaine was\ndefeated by an accident--by the slip of another man's tongue. But\nit matters little what party is in power if the Government is\nadministered upon correct principles, and if the Democracy adopt\nthe views of the Republicans and carry out Republican measures, it\nmay be that they can keep in power--otherwise--otherwise. If the\nDemocrats carry out real Democratic measures, then their defeat is\ncertain.\n\n_Question_. Do you think that the era of good feeling between the\nNorth and the South has set in with the appointment of ex-rebels\nto the Cabinet?\n\n_Answer_. The war is over. The South failed. The Nation succeeded.\nWe should stop talking about South and North. We are one people,\nand whether we agree or disagree one destiny awaits us. We cannot\ndivide. We must live together. We must trust each other. Confidence\nbegets confidence. The whole country was responsible for slavery.\nSlavery was rebellion. Slavery is dead--so is rebellion. Liberty\nhas united the country and there is more real union, national\nsentiment to-day, North and South, than ever before.\n\n_Question_. It is hinted that Mr. Tilden is really the power behind\nthe throne. Do you think so?\n\n_Answer_. I guess nobody has taken the hint. Of course Mr. Tilden\nhas retired from politics. The probability is that many Democrats\nask his advice, and some rely on his judgment. He is regarded as\na piece of ancient wisdom--a phenomenal persistence of the Jeffersonian\ntype--the connecting link with the framers, founders and fathers.\nThe power behind the throne is the power that the present occupant\nsupposes will determine who the next occupant shall be.\n\n_Question_. With the introduction of the Democracy into power,\nwhat radical changes will take place in the Government, and what\nwill be the result?\n\n_Answer_. If the President carries out his inaugural promises\nthere will be no radical changes, and if he does not there will be\na very radical change at the next presidential election. The\ninaugural is a very good Republican document. There is nothing in\nit calculated to excite alarm. There is no dangerous policy\nsuggested--no conceited vagaries--nothing but a plain statement of\nthe situation and the duty of the Chief Magistrate as understood\nby the President. I think that the inaugural surprised the Democrats\nand the Republicans both, and if the President carries out the\nprogram he has laid down he will surprise and pacify a large majority\nof the American people.\n\n--_Mail and Express_, New York, March 10, 1885.\n\n\nRELIGION, PROHIBITION, AND GEN. GRANT.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of prohibition, and what do you\nthink of its success in this State?\n\n_Answer_. Few people understand the restraining influence of\nliberty. Moderation walks hand in hand with freedom. I do not\nmean the freedom springing from the sudden rupture of restraint.\nThat kind of freedom usually rushes to extremes.\n\nPeople must be educated to take care of themselves, and this\neducation must commence in infancy. Self-restraint is the only\nkind that can always be depended upon. Of course intemperance is\na great evil. It causes immense suffering--clothes wives and\nchildren in rags, and is accountable for many crimes, particularly\nthose of violence. Laws to be of value must be honestly enforced.\nLaws that sleep had better be dead. Laws to be enforced must be\nhonestly approved of and believed in by a large majority of the\npeople. Unpopular laws make hypocrites, perjurers and official\nshirkers of duty. And if to the violation of such laws severe\npenalties attach, they are rarely enforced. Laws that create\nartificial crimes are the hardest to carry into effect. You can\nnever convince a majority of people that it is as bad to import\ngoods without paying the legal duty as to commit larceny. Neither\ncan you convince a majority of people that it is a crime or sin,\nor even a mistake, to drink a glass of wine or beer. Thousands and\nthousands of people in this State honestly believe that prohibition\nis an interference with their natural rights, and they feel justified\nin resorting to almost any means to defeat the law.\n\nIn this way people become somewhat demoralized. It is unfortunate\nto pass laws that remain unenforced on account of their unpopularity.\nPeople who would on most subjects swear to the truth do not hesitate\nto testify falsely on a prohibition trial. In addition to this,\nevery known device is resorted to, to sell in spite of the law,\nand when some want to sell and a great many want to buy, considerable\nbusiness will be done, while there are fewer saloons and less liquor\nsold in them. The liquor is poorer and the price is higher. The\nconsumer has to pay for the extra risk. More liquor finds its way\nto homes, more men buy by the bottle and gallon. In old times\nnearly everybody kept a little rum or whiskey on the sideboard.\nThe great Washingtonian temperance movement drove liquor out of\nthe home and increased the taverns and saloons. Now we are driving\nliquor back to the homes. In my opinion there is a vast difference\nbetween distilled spirits and the lighter drinks, such as wine and\nbeer. Wine is a fireside and whiskey a conflagration. These\nlighter drinks are not unhealthful and do not, as I believe, create\na craving for stronger beverages. You will, I think, find it almost\nimpossible to enforce the present law against wine and beer. I\nwas told yesterday that there are some sixty places in Cedar Rapids\nwhere whiskey is sold. It takes about as much ceremony to get a\ndrink as it does to join the Masons, but they seem to like the\nceremony. People seem to take delight in outwitting the State when\nit does not involve the commission of any natural offence, and when\nabout to be caught, may not hesitate to swear falsely to the extent\nof \"don't remember,\" or \"can't say positively,\" or \"can't swear\nwhether it was whiskey or not.\"\n\nOne great trouble in Iowa is that the politicians, or many of them\nwho openly advocate prohibition, are really opposed to it. They\nwant to keep the German vote, and they do not want to lose native\nRepublicans. They feel a \"divided duty\" to ride both horses. This\ncauses the contrast between their conversation and their speeches.\nA few years ago I took dinner with a gentleman who had been elected\nGovernor of one of our States on the Prohibition ticket. We had\nfour kinds of wine during the meal, and a pony of brandy at the\nend. Prohibition will never be a success until it prohibits the\nProhibitionists. And yet I most sincerely hope and believe that\nthe time will come when drunkenness shall have perished from the\nearth. Let us cultivate the love of home. Let husbands and wives\nand children be companions. Let them seek amusements together.\nIf it is a good place for father to go, it is a good place for\nmother and the children. I believe that a home can be made more\nattractive than a saloon. Let the boys and girls amuse themselves\nat home--play games, study music, read interesting books, and let\nthe parents be their playfellows. The best temperance lecture, in\nthe fewest words, you will find in Victor Hugo's great novel \"Les\nMiserables.\" The grave digger is asked to take a drink. He refuses\nand gives this reason: \"The hunger of my family is the enemy of\nmy thirst.\"\n\n_Question_. Many people wonder why you are out of politics. Will\nyou give your reasons?\n\n_Answer_. A few years ago great questions had to be settled. The\nlife of the nation was at stake. Later the liberty of millions of\nslaves depended upon the action of the Government. Afterward\nreconstruction and the rights of citizens pressed themselves upon\nthe people for solution. And last, the preservation of national\nhonor and credit. These questions did not enter into the last\ncampaign. They had all been settled, and properly settled, with\nthe one exception of the duty of the nation to protect the colored\ncitizens. The Supreme Court settled that, at least for a time,\nand settled it wrong. But the Republican party submitted to the\ncivil rights decision, and so, as between the great parties, that\nquestion did not arise. This left only two questions--protection\nand office. But as a matter of fact, all Republicans were not for\nour present system of protection, and all Democrats were not against\nit. On that question each party was and is divided. On the other\nquestion--office--both parties were and are in perfect harmony.\nNothing remains now for the Democrats to do except to give a\n\"working\" definition of \"offensive partisanship.\"\n\n_Question_. Do you think that the American people are seeking\nafter truth, or do they want to be amused?\n\n_Answer_. We have all kinds. Thousands are earnestly seeking for\nthe truth. They are looking over the old creeds, they are studying\nthe Bible for themselves, they have the candor born of courage,\nthey are depending upon themselves instead of on the clergy. They\nhave found out that the clergy do not know; that their sources of\ninformation are not reliable; that, like the politicians, many\nministers preach one way and talk another. The doctrine of eternal\npain has driven millions from the church. People with good hearts\ncannot get consolation out of that cruel lie. The ministers\nthemselves are getting ashamed to call that doctrine \"the tidings\nof great joy.\" The American people are a serious people. They\nwant to know the truth. They fell that whatever the truth may be\nthey have the courage to hear it. The American people also have\na sense of humor. They like to see old absurdities punctured and\nsolemn stupidity held up to laughter. They are, on the average,\nthe most intelligent people on the earth. They can see the point.\nTheir wit is sharp, quick and logical. Nothing amuses them more\nthat to see the mask pulled from the face of sham. The average\nAmerican is generous, intelligent, level-headed, manly, and good-\nnatured.\n\n_Question_. What, in your judgment, is the source of the greatest\ntrouble among men?\n\n_Answer_. Superstition. That has caused more agony, more tears,\npersecution and real misery than all other causes combined. The\nother name for superstition is ignorance. When men learn that all\nsin is a mistake, that all dishonesty is a blunder, that even\nintelligent selfishness will protect the rights of others, there\nwill be vastly more happiness in this world. Shakespeare says that\n\"There is no darkness but ignorance.\" Sometime man will learn that\nwhen he steals from another, he robs himself--that the way to be\nhappy is to make others so, and that it is far better to assist\nhis fellow-man than to fast, say prayers, count beads or build\ntemples to the Unknown. Some people tell us that selfishness is\nthe only sin, but selfishness grows in the soil of ignorance.\nAfter all, education is the great lever, and the only one capable\nof raising mankind. People ignorant of their own rights are ignorant\nof the rights of others. Every tyrant is the slave of ignorance.\n\n_Question_. How soon do you think we would have the millennium if\nevery person attended strictly to his own business?\n\n_Answer_. Now, if every person were intelligent enough to know\nhis own business--to know just where his rights ended and the rights\nof others commenced, and then had the wisdom and honesty to act\naccordingly, we should have a very happy world. Most people like\nto control the conduct of others. They love to write rules, and\npass laws for the benefit of their neighbors, and the neighbors\nare pretty busy at the same business. People, as a rule, think\nthat they know the business of other people better than they do\ntheir own. A man watching others play checkers or chess always\nthinks he sees better moves than the players make. When all people\nattend to their own business they will know that a part of their\nown business is to increase the happiness of others.\n\n_Question_. What is causing the development of this country?\n\n_Answer_. Education, the free exchange of ideas, inventions by\nwhich the forces of nature become our servants, intellectual\nhospitality, a willingness to hear the other side, the richness of\nour soil, the extent of our territory, the diversity of climate\nand production, our system of government, the free discussion of\npolitical questions, our social freedom, and above all, the fact\nthat labor is honorable.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of the religious tendency of the\npeople of this country?\n\n_Answer_. Using the word religion in its highest and best sense,\nthe people are becoming more religious. We are far more religious\n--using the word in its best sense--than when we believed in human\nslavery, but we are not as orthodox as we were then. We have more\nprinciple and less piety. We care more for the right and less for\nthe creed. The old orthodox dogmas are mouldy. You will find moss\non their backs. They are only brought out when a new candidate\nfor the ministry is to be examined. Only a little while ago in\nNew York a candidate for the Presbyterian pulpit was examined and\nthe following is a part of the examination:\n\n_Question_. \"Do you believe in eternal punishment, as set forth\nin the confession of faith?\"\n\n_Answer_. (With some hesitation) \"Yes, I do.\"\n\n_Question_. \"Have you preached on that subject lately?\"\n\n_Answer_. \"No. I prepared a sermon on hell, in which I took the\nground that the punishment of the wicked will be endless, and have\nit with me.\"\n\n_Question_. \"Did you deliver it?\"\n\n_Answer_. \"No. I thought that my congregation would not care to\nhear it. The doctrine is rather unpopular where I have been\npreaching, and I was afraid I might do harm, so I have not delivered\nit yet.\"\n\n_Question_. \"But you believe in eternal damnation, do you not?\"\n\n_Answer_. \"O yes, with all my heart.\"\n\nHe was admitted, and the admission proves the dishonesty of the\nexaminers and the examined. The new version of the Old and New\nTestaments has done much to weaken confidence in the doctrine of\ninspiration. It has occurred to a good many that if God took the\npains to inspire men to write the Bible, he ought to have inspired\nothers to translate it correctly. The general tendency today is\ntoward science, toward naturalism, toward what is called Infidelity,\nbut is in fact fidelity. Men are in a transition state, and the\npeople, on the average, have more real good, sound sense to-day\nthan ever before. The church is losing its power for evil. The\nold chains are wearing out, and new ones are not being made. The\ntendency is toward intellectual freedom, and that means the final\ndestruction of the orthodox bastille.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of General Grant as he stands\nbefore the people to-day?\n\n_Answer_. I have always regarded General Grant as the greatest\nsoldier this continent has produced. He is to-day the most\ndistinguished son of the Republic. The people have the greatest\nconfidence in his ability, his patriotism and his integrity. The\nfinancial disaster impoverished General Grant, but he did not stain\nthe reputation of the grand soldier who led to many victories the\ngreatest army that ever fought for the liberties of man.\n\n--_Iowa State Register_, May 23, 1885.\n\n\nHELL OR SHEOL AND OTHER SUBJECTS.\n\n_Question_. Colonel, have you read the revised Testament?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, but I don't believe the work has been fairly done.\nThe clergy are not going to scrape the butter off their own bread.\nThe clergy are offensive partisans, and those of each denomination\nwill interpret the Scriptures their way. No Baptist minister would\ncountenance a \"Revision\" that favored sprinkling, and no Catholic\npriest would admit that any version would be correct that destroyed\nthe dogma of the \"real presence.\" So I might go through all the\ndenominations.\n\n_Question_. Why was the word sheol introduced in place of hell,\nand how do you like the substitute?\n\n_Answer_. The civilized world has outgrown the vulgar and brutal\nhell of their fathers and founders of the churches. The clergy\nare ashamed to preach about sulphurous flames and undying worms.\nThe imagination of the world has been developed, the heart has\ngrown tender, and the old dogma of eternal pain shocks all civilized\npeople. It is becoming disgraceful either to preach or believe in\nsuch a beastly lie. The clergy are beginning to think that it is\nhardly manly to frighten children with a detected falsehood. Sheol\nis a great relief. It is not so hot as the old place. The nights\nare comfortable, and the society is quite refined. The worms are\ndead, and the air reasonably free from noxious vapors. It is a\nmuch worse word to hold a revival with, but much better for every\nday use. It will hardly take the place of the old word when people\nstep on tacks, put up stoves, or sit on pins; but for use at church\nfairs and mite societies it will do about as well. We do not need\nrevision; excision is what we want. The barbarism should be taken\nout of the Bible. Passages upholding polygamy, wars of extermination,\nslavery, and religious persecution should not be attributed to a\nperfect God. The good that is in the Bible will be saved for man,\nand man will be saved from the evil that is in that book. Why\nshould we worship in God what we detest in man?\n\n_Question_. Do you think the use of the word sheol will make any\ndifference to the preachers?\n\n_Answer_. Of course it will make no difference with Talmage. He\nwill make sheol just as hot and smoky and uncomfortable as hell,\nbut the congregations will laugh instead of tremble. The old\nshudder has gone. Beecher had demolished hell before sheol was\nadopted. According to his doctrine of evolution hell has been\nslowly growing cool. The cindered souls do not even perspire.\nSheol is nothing to Mr. Beecher but a new name for an old mistake.\nAs for the effect it will have on Heber Newton, I cannot tell,\nneither can he, until he asks his bishop. There are people who\nbelieve in witches and madstones and fiat money, and centuries\nhence it may be that people will exist who will believe as firmly\nin hell as Dr. Shedd does now.\n\n_Question_. What about Beecher's sermons on \"Evolution\"?\n\n_Answer_. Beecher's sermons on \"Evolution\" will do good. Millions\nof people believe that Mr. Beecher knows at least as much as the\nother preachers, and if he regards the atonement as a dogma with\na mistake for a foundation, they may conclude that the whole system\nis a mistake. But whether Mr. Beecher is mistaken or not, people\nknow that honesty is a good thing, that gratitude is a virtue, that\nindustry supports the world, and that whatever they believe about\nreligion they are bound by every conceivable obligation to be just\nand generous. Mr. Beecher can no more succeed in reconciling\nscience and religion, than he could in convincing the world that\ntriangles and circles are exactly the same. There is the same\nrelation between science and religion that there is between astronomy\nand astrology, between alchemy and chemistry, between orthodoxy\nand common sense.\n\n_Question_. Have you read Miss Cleveland's book? She condemns\nGeorge Eliot's poetry on the ground that it has no faith in it,\nnothing beyond. Do you imagine she would condemn Burns or Shelley\nfor that reason?\n\n_Answer_. I have not read Miss Cleveland's book; but, if the author\ncondemns the poetry of George Eliot, she has made a mistake. There\nis no poem in our language more beautiful than \"The Lovers,\" and\nnone loftier or purer than \"The Choir Invisible.\" There is no\npoetry in the \"beyond.\" The poetry is here--here in this world,\nwhere love is in the heart. The poetry of the beyond is too far\naway, a little too general. Shelley's \"Skylark\" was in our sky,\nthe daisy of Burns grew on our ground, and between that lark and\nthat daisy is room for all the real poetry of the earth.\n\n--_Evening Record_, Boston, Mass., 1885.\n\n\nINTERVIEWING, POLITICS AND SPIRITUALISM.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of the peculiar institution of\nAmerican journalism known as interviewing?\n\n_Answer_. If the interviewers are fair, if they know how to ask\nquestions of a public nature, if they remember what is said, or\nwrite it at the time, and if the interviewed knows enough to answer\nquestions in a way to amuse or instruct the public, then interviewing\nis a blessing. But if the representative of the press asks questions,\neither impudent or unimportant, and the answers are like the\nquestions, then the institution is a failure. When the journalist\nfails to see the man he wishes to interview, or when the man refuses\nto be interviewed, and thereupon the aforesaid journalist writes\nup an interview, doing the talking for both sides, the institution\nis a success. Such interviews are always interesting, and, as a\nrule, the questions are to the point and the answers perfectly\nresponsive. There is probably a little too much interviewing, and\nto many persons are asked questions upon subjects about which they\nknow nothing. Mr. Smith makes some money in stocks or pork, visits\nLondon, and remains in that city for several weeks. On his return\nhe is interviewd as to the institutions, laws and customs of the\nBritish Empire. Of course such an interview is exceedingly\ninstructive. Lord Affanaff lands at the dock in North River, is\ndriven to a hotel in a closed carriage, is interviewed a few minutes\nafter by a representative of the _Herald_ as to his view of the\ngreat Republic based upon what he has seen. Such an interview is\nalso instructive. Interviews with candidates as to their chances\nof election is another favorite way of finding out their honest\nopinion, but people who rely on those interviews generally lose\ntheir bets. The most interesting interviews are generally denied.\nI have been expecting to see an interview with the Rev. Dr. Leonard\non the medicinal properties of champagne and toast, or the relation\nbetween old ale and modern theology, and as to whether prohibition\nprohibits the Prohibitionists.\n\n_Question_. Have you ever been misrepresented in interviews?\n\n_Answer_. Several times. As a general rule, the clergy have\nselected these misrepresentations when answering me. I never blamed\nthem, because it is much easier to answer something I did not say.\nMost reporters try to give my real words, but it is difficult to\nremember. They try to give the substance, and in that way change\nor destroy the sense. You remember the Frenchman who translated\nShakespeare's great line in Macbeth--\"Out, brief candle!\"--into\n\"Short candle, go out!.\" Another man, trying to give the last\nwords of Webster--\"I still live\"--said \"I aint dead yit.\" So that\nwhen they try to do their best they often make mistakes. Now and\nthen interviews appear not one word of which I ever said, and\nsometimes when I really had an interview, another one has appeared.\nBut generally the reporters treat me well, and most of them succeed\nin telling about what I said. Personally I have no cause for\ncomplaint.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the administration of President\nCleveland?\n\n_Answer_. I know but very little about it. I suppose that he is\ndoing the best he can. He appears to be carrying out in good faith\nthe principles laid down in the platform on which he was elected.\nHe is having a hard road to travel. To satisfy an old Democrat\nand a new mugwump is a difficult job. Cleveland appears to be the\nowner of himself--appears to be a man of great firmness and force\nof character. The best thing that I have heard about him is that\nhe went fishing on Sunday. We have had so much mock morality, dude\ndeportment and hypocritical respectability in public office, that\na man with courage enough to enjoy himself on Sunday is a refreshing\nand healthy example. All things considered I do not see but that\nCleveland is doing well enough. The attitude of the administration\ntoward the colored people is manly and fair so far as I can see.\n\n_Question_. Are you still a Republican in political belief?\n\n_Answer_. I believe that this is a Nation. I believe in the\nequality of all men before the law, irrespective of race, religion\nor color. I believe that there should be a dollar's worth of silver\nin a silver dollar. I believe in a free ballot and a fair count.\nI believe in protecting those industries, and those only, that need\nprotection. I believe in unrestricted coinage of gold and silver.\nI believe in the rights of the State, the rights of the citizen,\nand the sovereignty of the Nation. I believe in good times, good\nhealth, good crops, good prices, good wages, good food, good clothes\nand in the absolute and unqualified liberty of thought. If such\nbelief makes a Republican, than that is what I am.\n\n_Question_. Do you approve of John Sherman's policy in the present\ncampaign with reference to the bloody shirt, which reports of his\nspeeches show that he is waving?\n\n_Answer_. I have not read Senator Sherman's speech. It seems to\nme that there is a better feeling between the North and South than\never before--better than at any time since the Revolutionary war.\nI believe in cultivating that feeling, and in doing and saying what\nwe can to contribute to its growth. We have hated long enough and\nfought enough. The colored people never have been well treated\nbut they are being better treated now than ever before. It takes\na long time to do away with prejudices that were based upon religion\nand rascality--that is to say, inspiration and interest. We must\nremember that slavery was the crime of the whole country. Now, if\nSenator Sherman has made a speech calculated to excite the hatreds\nand prejudices of the North and South, I think that he has made a\nmistake. I do not say that he has made such a speech, because I\nhave not read it. The war is over--it ended at Appomattox. Let\nus hope that the bitterness born of the conflict died out forever\nat Riverside. The people are tired almost to death of the old\nspeeches. They have been worn out and patched, and even the patches\nare threadbare. The Supreme Court decided the Civil Rights Bill\nto be unconstitutional, and the Republican party submitted. I\nregarded the decision as monstrous, but the Republican party when\nin power said nothing and did nothing. I most sincerely hope that\nthe Democratic party will protect the colored people at least as\nwell as we did when we were in power. But I am out of politics\nand intend to keep politics out of me.\n\n_Question_. We have been having the periodical revival of interest\nin Spiritualism. What do you think of \"Spiritualism,\" as it is\npopularly termed?\n\n_Answer_. I do not believe in the supernatural. One who does not\nbelieve in gods would hardly believe in ghosts. I am not a believer\nin any of the \"wonders\" and \"miracles\" whether ancient or modern.\nThere may be spirits, but I do not believe there are. They may\ncommunicate with some people, but thus far they have been successful\nin avoiding me. Of course, I know nothing for certain on the\nsubject. I know a great many excellent people who are thoroughly\nconvinced of the truth of Spiritualism. Christians laugh at the\n\"miracles\" to-day, attested by folks they know, but believe the\nmiracles of long ago, attested by folks that they did not know.\nThis is one of the contradictions in human nature. Most people\nare willing to believe that wonderful things happened long ago and\nwill happen again in the far future; with them the present is the\nonly time in which nature behaves herself with becoming sobriety.\n\nIn old times nature did all kinds of juggling tricks, and after a\nlong while will do some more, but now she is attending strictly to\nbusiness, depending upon cause and effect.\n\n_Question_. Who, in your opinion, is the greatest leader of the\n\"opposition\" yclept the Christian religion?\n\n_Answer_. I suppose that Mr. Beecher is the greatest man in the\npulpit, but he thinks more of Darwin than he does of David and has\nan idea that the Old Testament is just a little too old. He has\nput evolution in the place of the atonement--has thrown away the\nGarden of Eden, snake, apples and all, and is endeavoring to save\nenough of the orthodox wreck to make a raft. I know of no other\ngenius in the pulpit. There are plenty of theological doctors and\nbishops and all kinds of titled humility in the sacred profession,\nbut men of genius are scarce. All the ministers, except Messrs.\nMoody and Jones, are busy explaining away the contradiction between\ninspiration and demonstration.\n\n_Question_. What books would you recommend for the perusal of a\nyoung man of limited time and culture with reference to helping\nhim in the development of intellect and good character?\n\n_Answer_. The works of Darwin, Ernst Haeckel, Draper's \"Intellectual\nDevelopment of Europe,\" Buckle's \"History of Civilization in\nEngland,\" Lecky's \"History of European Morals,\" Voltaire's\n\"Philosophical Dictionary,\" Buechner's \"Force and Matter,\" \"The\nHistory of the Christian Religion\" by Waite; Paine's \"Age of Reason,\"\nD'Holbach's \"System of Nature,\" and, above all, Shakespeare. Do\nnot forget Burns, Shelley, Dickens and Hugo.\n\n_Question_. Will you lecture the coming winter?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, about the same as usual. Woe is me if I preach\nnot my gospel.\n\n_Question_. Have you been invited to lecture in Europe? If so do\nyou intend to accept the \"call\"?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, often. The probability is that I shall go to\nEngland and Australia. I have not only had invitations but most\nexcellent offers from both countries. There is, however, plenty\nto do here. This is the best country in the world and our people\nare eager to hear the other side.\n\nThe old kind of preaching is getting superannuated. It lags\nsuperfluous in the pulpit. Our people are outgrowing the cruelties\nand absurdities of the ancient Jews. The idea of hell has become\nshocking and vulgar. Eternal punishment is eternal injustice. It\nis infinitely infamous. Most ministers are ashamed to preach the\ndoctrine, and the congregations are ashamed to hear it preached.\nIt is the essence of savagery.\n\n--_Plain Dealer_, Cincinnati, Ohio, September 5, 1885.\n\n\nMY BELIEF.\n\n_Question_. It is said that in the past four or five years you\nhave changed or modified your views upon the subject of religion;\nis this so?\n\n_Answer_. It is not so. The only change, if that can be called\na change, is, that I am more perfectly satisfied that I am right--\nsatisfied that what is called orthodox religion is a simple\nfabrication of mistaken men; satisfied that there is no such thing\nas an inspired book and never will be; satisfied that a miracle\nnever was and never will be performed; satisfied that no human\nbeing knows whether there is a God or not, whether there is another\nlife or not; satisfied that the scheme of atonement is a mistake,\nthat the innocent cannot, by suffering for the guilty, atone for\nthe guilt; satisfied that the doctrine that salvation depends on\nbelief, is cruel and absurd; satisfied that the doctrine of eternal\npunishment is infamously false; satisfied that superstition is of\nno use to the human race; satisfied that humanity is the only true\nand real religion.\n\nNo, I have not modified my views. I detect new absurdities every\nday in the popular belief. Every day the whole thing becomes more\nand more absurd. Of course there are hundreds and thousands of\nmost excellent people who believe in orthodox religion; people for\nwhose good qualities I have the greatest respect; people who have\ngood ideas on most other subjects; good citizens, good fathers,\nhusbands, wives and children--good in spite of their religion. I\ndo not attack people. I attack the mistakes of people. Orthodoxy\nis getting weaker every day.\n\n_Question_. Do you believe in the existence of a Supreme Being?\n\n_Answer_. I do not believe in any Supreme personality or in any\nSupreme Being who made the universe and governs nature. I do not\nsay that there is no such Being--all I say is that I do not believe\nthat such a Being exists. I know nothing on the subject, except\nthat I know that I do not know and that nobody else knows. But if\nthere is such a Being, he certainly never wrote the Old Testament.\nYou will understand my position. I do not say that a Supreme Being\ndoes not exist, but I do say that I do not believe such a Being\nexists. The universe--embracing all that is--all atoms, all stars,\neach grain of sand and all the constellations, each thought and\ndream of animal and man, all matter and all force, all doubt and\nall belief, all virtue and all crime, all joy and all pain, all\ngrowth and all decay--is all there is. It does not act because it\nis moved from without. It acts from within. It is actor and\nsubject, means and end.\n\nIt is infinite; the infinite could not have been created. It is\nindestructible and that which cannot be destroyed was not created.\nI am a Pantheist.\n\n_Question_. Don't you think the belief of the Agnostic is more\nsatisfactory to the believer than that of the Atheist?\n\n_Answer_. There is no difference. The Agnostic is an Atheist.\nThe Atheist is an Agnostic. The Agnostic says: \"I do not know,\nbut I do not believe there is any God.\" The Atheist says the same.\nThe orthodox Christian says he knows there is a God; but we know\nthat he does not know. He simply believes. He cannot know. The\nAtheist cannot know that God does not exist.\n\n_Question_. Haven't you just the faintest glimmer of a hope that\nin some future state you will meet and be reunited to those who\nare dear to you in this?\n\n_Answer_. I have no particular desire to be destroyed. I am\nwilling to go to heaven if there be such a place, and enjoy myself\nfor ever and ever. It would give me infinite satisfaction to know\nthat all mankind are to be happy forever. Infidels love their\nwives and children as well as Christians do theirs. I have never\nsaid a word against heaven--never said a word against the idea of\nimmortality. On the contrary, I have said all I could truthfully\nsay in favor of the idea that we shall live again. I most sincerely\nhope that there is another world, better than this, where all the\nbroken ties of love will be united. It is the other place I have\nbeen fighting. Better that all of us should sleep the sleep of\ndeath forever than that some should suffer pain forever. If in\norder to have a heaven there must be a hell, then I say away with\nthem both. My doctrine puts the bow of hope over every grave; my\ndoctrine takes from every mother's heart the fear of hell. No good\nman would enjoy himself in heaven with his friends in hell. No\ngood God could enjoy himself in heaven with millions of his poor,\nhelpless mistakes in hell. The orthodox idea of heaven--with God\nan eternal inquisitor, a few heartless angels and some redeemed\northodox, all enjoying themselves, while the vast multitude will\nweep in the rayless gloom of God's eternal dungeon--is not calculated\nto make man good or happy. I am doing what I can to civilize the\nchurches, humanize the preachers and get the fear of hell out of\nthe human heart. In this business I am meeting with great success.\n\n--_Philadelphia Times_, September 25, 1885.\n\n\nSOME LIVE TOPICS.\n\n_Question_. Shall you attend the Albany Freethought Convention?\n\n_Answer_. I have agreed to be present not only, but to address\nthe convention, on Sunday, the 13th of September. I am greatly\ngratified to know that the interest in the question of intellectual\nliberty is growing from year to year. Everywhere I go it seems to\nbe the topic of conversation. No matter upon what subject people\nbegin to talk, in a little while the discussion takes a religious\nturn, and people who a few moments before had not the slightest\nthought of saying a word about the churches, or about the Bible,\nare giving their opinions in full. I hear discussions of this kind\nin all the public conveyances, at the hotels, on the piazzas at\nthe seaside--and they are not discussions in which I take any part,\nbecause I rarely say anything upon these questions except in public,\nunless I am directly addressed.\n\nThere is a general feeling that the church has ruled the world long\nenough. People are beginning to see that no amount of eloquence,\nor faith, or erudition, or authority, can make the records of\nbarbarism satisfactory to the heart and brain of this century.\nThey have also found that a falsehood in Hebrew in no more credible\nthan in plain English. People at last are beginning to be satisfied\nthat cruel laws were never good laws, no matter whether inspired\nor uninspired. The Christian religion, like every other religion\ndepending upon inspired writings, is wrecked upon the facts of\nnature. So long as inspired writers confined themselves to the\nsupernatural world; so long as they talked about angels and Gods\nand heavens and hells; so long as they described only things that\nman has never seen, and never will see, they were safe, not from\ncontradiction, but from demonstration. But these writings had to\nhave a foundation, even for their falsehoods, and that foundation\nwas in Nature. The foundation had to be something about which\nsomebody knew something, or supposed they knew something. They\ntold something about this world that agreed with the then general\nopinion. Had these inspired writers told the truth about Nature--\nhad they said that the world revolved on its axis, and made a\ncircuit about the sun--they could have gained no credence for their\nstatements about other worlds. They were forced to agree with\ntheir contemporaries about this world, and there is where they made\nthe fundamental mistake. Having grown in knowledge, the world has\ndiscovered that these inspired men knew nothing about this earth;\nthat the inspired books are filled with mistakes--not only mistakes\nthat we can contradict, but mistakes that we can demonstrate to be\nmistakes. Had they told the truth in their day, about this earth,\nthey would not have been believed about other worlds, because their\ncontemporaries would have used their own knowledge about this world\nto test the knowledge of these inspired men. We pursue the same\ncourse; and what we know about this world we use as the standard,\nand by that standard we have found that the inspired men knew\nnothing about Nature as it is. Finding that they were mistaken\nabout this world, we have no confidence in what they have said\nabout another. Every religion has had its philosophy about this\nworld, and every one has been mistaken. As education becomes\ngeneral, as scientific modes are adopted, this will become clearer\nand clearer, until \"ignorant as inspiration\" will be a comparison.\n\n_Question_. Have you seen the memorial to the New York Legislature,\nto be presented this winter, asking for the repeal of such laws as\npractically unite church and state?\n\n_Answer_. I have seen a memorial asking that church property be\ntaxed like other property; that no more money should be appropriated\nfrom the public treasury for the support of institutions managed\nby and in the interest of sectarian denominations; for the repeal\nof all laws compelling the observance of Sunday as a religious day.\nSuch memorials ought to be addressed to the Legislatures of all\nthe States. The money of the public should only be used for the\nbenefit of the public. Public money should not be used for what\na few gentlemen think is for the benefit of the public. Personally,\nI think it would be for the benefit of the public to have Infidel\nor scientific--which is the same thing--lectures delivered in every\ntown, in every State, on every Sunday; but knowing that a great\nmany men disagree with me on this point, I do not claim that such\nlectures ought to be paid for with public money. The Methodist\nChurch ought not to be sustained by taxation, nor the Catholic,\nnor any other church. To relieve their property from taxation is\nto appropriate money, to the extent of that tax, for the support\nof that church. Whenever a burden is lifted from one piece of\nproperty, it is distributed over the rest of the property of the\nState, and to release one kind of property is to increase the tax\non all other kinds.\n\nThere was a time when people really supposed the churches were\nsaving souls from the eternal wrath of a God of infinite love.\nBeing engaged in such a philanthropic work, and at the time nobody\nhaving the courage to deny it--the church being all-powerful--all\nother property was taxed to support the church; but now the more\ncivilized part of the community, being satisfied that a God of\ninfinite love will not be eternally unjust, feel as though the\nchurch should support herself. To exempt the church from taxation\nis to pay a part of the priest's salary. The Catholic now objects\nto being taxed to support a school in which his religion is not\ntaught. He is not satisfied with the school that says nothing on\nthe subject of religion. He insists that it is an outrage to tax\nhim to support a school where the teacher simply teaches what he\nknows. And yet this same Catholic wants his church exempted from\ntaxation, and the tax of an Atheist or of a Jew increased, when he\nteaches in his untaxed church that the Atheist and Jew will both\nbe eternally damned! Is it possible for impudence to go further?\n\nI insist that no religion should be taught in any school supported\nby public money; and by religion I mean superstition. Only that\nshould be taught in a school that somebody can learn and that\nsomebody can know. In my judgment, every church should be taxed\nprecisely the same as other property. The church may claim that\nit is one of the instruments of civilization and therefore should\nbe exempt. If you exempt that which is useful, you exempt every\ntrade and every profession. In my judgment, theatres have done\nmore to civilize mankind than churches; that is to say, theatres\nhave done something to civilize mankind--churches nothing. The\neffect of all superstition has been to render men barbarous. I do\nnot believe in the civilizing effects of falsehood.\n\nThere was a time when ministers were supposed to be in the employ\nof God, and it was thought that God selected them with great care\n--that their profession had something sacred about it. These ideas\nare no longer entertained by sensible people. Ministers should be\npaid like other professional men, and those who like their preaching\nshould pay for the preach. They should depend, as actors do, upon\ntheir popularity, upon the amount of sense, or nonsense, that they\nhave for sale. They should depend upon the market like other\npeople, and if people do not want to hear sermons badly enough to\nbuild churches and pay for them, and pay the taxes on them, and\nhire the preacher, let the money be diverted to some other use.\nThe pulpit should no longer be a pauper. I do not believe in\ncarrying on any business with the contribution box. All the\nsectarian institutions ought to support themselves. These should\nbe no Methodist or Catholic or Presbyterian hospitals or orphan\nasylums. All these should be supported by the State. There is no\nsuch thing as Catholic charity, or Methodist charity. Charity\nbelongs to humanity, not to any particular form of faith or religion.\nYou will find as charitable people who never heard of religion, as\nyou can find in the church. The State should provide for those\nwho ought to be provided for. A few Methodists beg of everybody\nthey meet--send women with subscription papers, asking money from\nall classes of people, and nearly everybody gives something from\npoliteness, or to keep from being annoyed; and when the institution\nis finished, it is pointed at as the result of Methodism.\n\nProbably a majority of the people in this country suppose that\nthere was no charity in the world until the Christian religion was\nfounded. Great men have repeated this falsehood, until ignorance\nand thoughtlessness believe it. There were orphan asylums in China,\nin India, and in Egypt thousands of years before Christ was born;\nand there certainly never was a time in the history of the whole\nworld when there was less charity in Europe than during the centuries\nwhen the Church of Christ had absolute power. There were hundreds\nof Mohammedan asylums before Christianity had built ten in the\nentire world.\n\nAll institutions for the care of unfortunate people should be\nsecular--should be supported by the State. The money for the\npurpose should be raised by taxation, to the end that the burden\nmay be borne by those able to bear it. As it is now, most of the\nmoney is paid, not by the rich, but by the generous, and those most\nable to help their needy fellow citizens are the very ones who do\nnothing. If the money is raised by taxation, then the burden will\nfall where it ought to fall, and these institutions will no longer\nbe supported by the generous and emotional, and the rich and stingy\nwill no longer be able to evade the duties of citizenship and of\nhumanity.\n\nNow, as to the Sunday laws, we know that they are only spasmodically\nenforced. Now and then a few people are arrested for selling papers\nor cigars. Some unfortunate barber is grabbed by a policeman\nbecause he has been caught shaving a Christian, Sunday morning.\nNow and then some poor fellow with a hack, trying to make a dollar\nor two to feed his horses, or to take care of his wife and children,\nis arrested as though he were a murderer. But in a few days the\npublic are inconvenienced to that degree that the arrests stop and\nbusiness goes on in its accustomed channels, Sunday and all.\n\nNow and then society becomes so pious, so virtuous, that people\nare compelled to enter saloons by the back door; others are compelled\nto drink beer with the front shutters up; but otherwise the stream\nthat goes down the thirsty throats is unbroken. The ministers have\ndone their best to prevent all recreation on the Sabbath. They\nwould like to stop all the boats on the Hudson, and on the sea--\nstop all the excursion trains. They would like to compel every\nhuman being that lives in the city of New York to remain within\nits limits twenty-four hours every Sunday. They hate the parks;\nthey hate music; they hate anything that keeps a man away from\nchurch. Most of the churches are empty during the summer, and now\nmost of the ministers leave themselves, and give over the entire\ncity to the Devil and his emissaries. And yet if the ministers had\ntheir way, there would be no form of human enjoyment except prayer,\nsigning subscription papers, putting money in contribution boxes,\nlistening to sermons, reading the cheerful histories of the Old\nTestament, imagining the joys of heaven and the torments of hell.\nThe church is opposed to the theatre, is the enemy of the opera,\nlooks upon dancing as a crime, hates billiards, despises cards,\nopposes roller-skating, and even entertains a certain kind of\nprejudice against croquet.\n\n_Question_. Do you think that the orthodox church gets its ideas\nof the Sabbath from the teachings of Christ?\n\n_Answer_. I do not hold Christ responsible for these idiotic ideas\nconcerning the Sabbath. He regarded the Sabbath as something made\nfor man--which was a very sensible view. The holiest day is the\nhappiest day. The most sacred day is the one in which have been\ndone the most good deeds. There are two reasons given in the Bible\nfor keeping the Sabbath. One is that God made the world in six\ndays, and rested on the seventh. Now that all the ministers admit\nthat he did not make the world in six days, but that he made it in\nsix \"periods,\" this reason is no longer applicable. The other\nreason is that he brought the Jews out of Egypt with a \"mighty\nhand.\" This may be a very good reason still for the observance of\nthe Sabbath by the Jews, but the real Sabbath, that is to say, the\nday to be commemorated, is our Saturday, and why should we commemorate\nthe wrong day? That disposes of the second reason.\n\nNothing can be more inconsistent than the theories and practice of\nthe churches about the Sabbath. The cars run Sundays, and out of\nthe profits hundreds of ministers are supported. The great iron\nand steel works fill with smoke and fire the Sabbath air, and the\nproprietors divide the profits with the churches. The printers of\nthe city are busy Sunday afternoons and evenings, and the presses\nduring the nights, so that the sermons of Sunday can reach the\nheathen on Monday. The servants of the rich are denied the privileges\nof the sanctuary. The coachman sits on the box out-doors, while\nhis employer kneels in church preparing himself for the heavenly\nchariot. The iceman goes about on the holy day, keeping believers\ncool, they knowing at the same time that he is making it hot for\nhimself in the world to come. Christians cross the Atlantic,\nknowing that the ship will pursue its way on the Sabbath. They\nwrite letters to their friends knowing that they will be carried\nin violation of Jehovah's law, by wicked men. Yet they hate to\nsee a pale-faced sewing girl enjoying a few hours by the sea; a\npoor mechanic walking in the fields; or a tired mother watching\nher children playing on the grass. Nothing ever was, nothing ever\nwill be, more utterly absurd and disgusting than a Puritan Sunday.\nNothing ever did make a home more hateful than the strict observance\nof the Sabbath. It fills the house with hypocrisy and the meanest\nkind of petty tyranny. The parents look sour and stern, the children\nsad and sulky. They are compelled to talk upon subjects about\nwhich they feel no interest, or to read books that are thought good\nonly because they are so stupid.\n\n_Question_. What have you to say about the growth of Catholicism,\nthe activity of the Salvation Army, and the success of revivalists\nlike the Rev. Samuel Jones? Is Christianity really gaining a strong\nhold on the masses?\n\n_Answer_. Catholicism is growing in this country, and it is the\nonly country on earth in which it is growing. Its growth here\ndepends entirely upon immigration, not upon intellectual conquest.\nCatholic emigrants who leave their homes in the Old World because\nthey have never had any liberty, and who are Catholics for the same\nreason, add to the number of Catholics here, but their children's\nchildren will not be Catholics. Their children will not be very\ngood Catholics, and even these immigrants themselves, in a few\nyears, will not grovel quite so low in the presence of a priest.\nThe Catholic Church is gaining no ground in Catholic countries.\n\nThe Salvation Army is the result of two things--the general belief\nin what are known as the fundamentals of Christianity, and the\nheartlessness of the church. The church in England--that is to\nsay, the Church of England--having succeeded--that is to say, being\nsupported by general taxation--that is to say, being a successful,\nwell-fed parasite--naturally neglected those who did not in any\nway contribute to its support. It became aristocratic. Splendid\nchurches were built; younger sons with good voices were put in the\npulpits; the pulpit became the asylum for aristocratic mediocrity,\nand in this way the Church of England lost interest in the masses\nand the masses lost interest in the Church of England. The neglected\npoor, who really had some belief in religion, and who had not been\nabsolutely petrified by form and patronage, were ready for the\nSalvation Army. They were not at home in the church. They could\nnot pay. They preferred the freedom of the street. They preferred\nto attend a church where rags were no objection. Had the church\nloved and labored with the poor the Salvation Army never would have\nexisted. These people are simply giving their idea of Christianity,\nand in their way endeavoring to do what they consider good. I\ndon't suppose the Salvation Army will accomplish much. To improve\nmankind you must change conditions. It is not enough to work simply\nupon the emotional nature. The surroundings must be such as\nnaturally produce virtuous actions. If we are to believe recent\nreports from London, the Church of England, even with the assistance\nof the Salvation Army, has accomplished but little. It would be\nhard to find any country with less morality. You would search long\nin the jungles of Africa to find greater depravity.\n\nI account for revivalists like the Rev. Samuel Jones in the same\nway. There is in every community an ignorant class--what you might\ncall a literal class--who believe in the real blood atonement; who\nbelieve in heaven and hell, and harps and gridirons; who have never\nhad their faith weakened by reading commentators or books harmonizing\nscience and religion. They love to hear the good old doctrine;\nthey want hell described; they want it described so that they can\nhear the moans and shrieks; they want heaven described; they want\nto see God on a throne, and they want to feel that they are finally\nto have the pleasure of looking over the battlements of heaven and\nseeing all their enemies among the damned. The Rev. Mr. Munger\nhas suddenly become a revivalist. According to the papers he is\nsought for in every direction. His popularity seems to rest upon\nthe fact that he brutally beat a girl twelve years old because she\ndid not say her prayers to suit him. Muscular Christianity is what\nthe ignorant people want. I regard all these efforts--including\nthose made by Mr. Moody and Mr. Hammond--as evidence that Christianity,\nas an intellectual factor, has almost spent its force. It no longer\ngoverns the intellectual world.\n\n_Question_. Are not the Catholics the least progressive? And are\nthey not, in spite of their professions to the contrary, enemies\nto republican liberty?\n\n_Answer_. Every church that has a standard higher than human\nwelfare is dangerous. A church that puts a book above the laws\nand constitution of its country, that puts a book above the welfare\nof mankind, is dangerous to human liberty. Every church that puts\nitself above the legally expressed will of the people is dangerous.\nEvery church that holds itself under greater obligation to a pope\nthan to a people is dangerous to human liberty. Every church that\nputs religion above humanity--above the well-being of man in this\nworld--is dangerous. The Catholic Church may be more dangerous,\nnot because its doctrines are more dangerous, but because, on the\naverage, its members more sincerely believe its doctrines, and\nbecause that church can be hurled as a solid body in any given\ndirection. For these reasons it is more dangerous than other\nchurches; but the doctrines are no more dangerous than those of\nthe Protestant churches. The man who would sacrifice the well-\nbeing of man to please an imaginary phantom that he calls God, is\nalso dangerous. The only safe standard is the well-being of man\nin this world. Whenever this world is sacrificed for the sake of\nanother, a mistake has been made. The only God that man can know\nis the aggregate of all beings capable of suffering and of joy\nwithin the reach of his influence. To increase the happiness of\nsuch beings is to worship the only God that man can know.\n\n_Question_. What have you to say to the assertion of Dr. Deems\nthat there were never so many Christians as now?\n\n_Answer_. I suppose that the population of the earth is greater\nnow than at any other time within the historic period. This being\nso, there may be more Christians, so-called, in this world than\nthere were a hundred years ago. Of course, the reverend doctor,\nin making up his aggregate of Christians, counts all kinds and\nsects--Unitarians, Universalists, and all the other \"ans\" and \"ists\"\nand \"ics\" and \"ites\" and \"ers.\" But Dr. Deems must admit that only\na few years ago most of the persons he now calls Christians would\nhave been burnt as heretics and Infidels. Let us compare the\naverage New York Christian with the Christian of two hundred years\nago. It is probably safe to say that there is not now in the city\nof New York a genuine Presbyterian outside of an insane asylum.\nProbably no one could be found who will to-day admit that he believes\nabsolutely in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith. There is\nprobably not an Episcopalian who believes in the Thirty-nine\nArticles. Probably there is not an intelligent minister in the\ncity of New York, outside of the Catholic Church, who believes that\neverything in the Bible is true. Probably no clergyman, of any\nstanding, would be willing to take the ground that everything in\nthe Old Testament--leaving out the question of inspiration--is\nactually true. Very few ministers now preach the doctrine of\neternal punishment. Most of them would be ashamed to utter that\nbrutal falsehood. A large majority of gentlemen who attend church\ntake the liberty of disagreeing with the preacher. They would have\nbeen very poor Christians two hundred years ago. A majority of\nthe ministers take the liberty of disagreeing, in many things, with\ntheir Presbyteries and Synods. They would have been very poor\npreachers two hundred years ago. Dr. Deems forgets that most\nChristians are only nominally so. Very few believe their creeds.\nVery few even try to live in accordance with what they call Christian\ndoctrines. Nobody loves his enemies. No Christian when smitten\non one cheek turns the other. Most Christians do take a little\nthought for the morrow. They do not depend entirely upon the\nprovidence of God. Most Christians now have greater confidence in\nthe average life-insurance company than in God--feel easier when\ndying to know that they have a policy, through which they expect\nthe widow will receive ten thousand dollars, than when thinking of\nall the Scripture promises. Even church-members do not trust in\nGod to protect their own property. They insult heaven by putting\nlightning rods on their temples. They insure the churches against\nthe act of God. The experience of man has shown the wisdom of\nrelying on something that we know something about, instead of upon\nthe shadowy supernatural. The poor wretches to-day in Spain,\ndepending upon their priests, die like poisoned flies; die with\nprayers between their pallid lips; die in their filth and faith.\n\n_Question_. What have you to say on the Mormon question?\n\n_Answer_. The institution of polygamy is infamous and disgusting\nbeyond expression. It destroys what we call, and all civilized\npeople call, \"the family.\" It pollutes the fireside, and, above\nall, as Burns would say, \"petrifies the feeling.\" It is, however,\none of the institutions of Jehovah. It is protected by the Bible.\nIt has inspiration on its side. Sinai, with its barren, granite\npeaks, is a perpetual witness in its favor. The beloved of God\npracticed it, and, according to the sacred word, the wisest man\nhad, I believe, about seven hundred wives. This man received his\nwisdom directly from God. It is hard for the average Bible worshiper\nto attack this institution without casting a certain stain upon\nhis own book.\n\nOnly a few years ago slavery was upheld by the same Bible. Slavery\nhaving been abolished, the passages in the inspired volume upholding\nit have been mostly forgotten, but polygamy lives, and the polygamists,\nwith great volubility, repeat the passages in their favor. We send\nour missionaries to Utah, with their Bibles, to convert the Mormons.\n\nThe Mormons show, by these very Bibles, that God is on their side.\nNothing remain now for the missionaries except to get back their\nBibles and come home. The preachers do not appeal to the Bible\nfor the purpose of putting down Mormonism. They say: \"Send the\narmy.\" If the people of this country could only be honest; if they\nwould only admit that the Old Testament is but the record of a\nbarbarous people; if the Samson of the nineteenth century would\nnot allow its limbs to be bound by the Delilah of superstition, it\ncould with one blow destroy this monster. What shall we say of\nthe moral force of Christianity, when it utterly fails in the\npresence of Mormonism? What shall we say of a Bible that we dare\nnot read to a Mormon as an argument against legalized lust, or as\nan argument against illegal lust?\n\nI am opposed to polygamy. I want it exterminated by law; but I\nhate to see the exterminators insist that God, only a few thousand\nyears ago, was as bad as the Mormons are to-day. In my judgment,\nsuch a God ought to be exterminated.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of men like the Rev. Henry Ward\nBeecher and the Rev. R. Heber Newton? Do they deserve any credit\nfor the course they have taken?\n\n_Answer_. Mr. Beecher is evidently endeavoring to shore up the\nwalls of the falling temple. He sees the cracks; he knows that\nthe building is out of plumb; he feels that the foundation is\ninsecure. Lies can take the place of stones only so long as they\nare thoroughly believed. Mr. Beecher is trying to do something to\nharmonize superstition and science. He is reading between the\nlines. He has discovered that Darwin is only a later Saint Paul,\nor that Saint Paul was the original Darwin. He is endeavoring to\nmake the New Testament a scientific text-book. Of course he will\nfail. But his intentions are good. Thousands of people will read\nthe New Testament with more freedom than heretofore. They will\nlook for new meanings; and he who looks for new meanings will not\nbe satisfied with the old ones. Mr. Beecher, instead of strengthening\nthe walls, will make them weaker.\n\nThere is no harmony between religion and science. When science\nwas a child, religion sought to strangle it in the cradle. Now\nthat science has attained its youth, and superstition is in its\ndotage, the trembling, palsied wreck says to the athlete: \"Let us\nbe friends.\" It reminds me of the bargain the cock wished to make\nwith the horse: \"Let us agree not to step on each other's feet.\"\nMr. Beecher, having done away with hell, substitutes annihilation.\nHis doctrine at present is that only a fortunate few are immortal,\nand that the great mass return to dreamless dust. This, of course,\nis far better than hell, and is a great improvement on the orthodox\nview. Mr. Beecher cannot believe that God would make such a mistake\nas to make men doomed to suffer eternal pain. Why, I ask, should\nGod give life to men whom he knows are unworthy of life? Why should\nhe annihilate his mistakes? Why should he make mistakes that need\nannihilation?\n\nIt can hardly be said that Mr. Beecher's idea is a new one. It\nwas taught, with an addition, thousands of years ago, in India,\nand the addition almost answers my objection. The old doctrine\nwas that only the soul that bears fruit, only the soul that bursts\ninto blossom, will at the death of the body rejoin the Infinite,\nand that all other souls--souls not having blossomed--will go back\ninto low forms and make the journey up to man once more, and should\nthey then blossom and bear fruit, will be held worthy to join the\nInfinite, but should they again fail, they again go back; and this\nprocess is repeated until they do blossom, and in this way all\nsouls at last become perfect. I suggest that Mr. Beecher make at\nleast this addition to his doctrine.\n\nBut allow me to say that, in my judgment, Mr. Beecher is doing\ngreat good. He may not convince many people that he is right, but\nhe will certainly convince a great many people that Christianity\nis wrong.\n\n_Question_. In what estimation do you hold Charles Watts and Samuel\nPutnam, and what do you think of their labors in the cause of\nFreethought?\n\n_Answer_. Mr. Watts is an extremely logical man, with a direct\nand straightforward manner and mind. He has paid great attention\nto what is called \"Secularism.\" He thoroughly understands\norganization, and he is undoubtedly one of the strongest debaters\nin the field. He has had great experience. He has demolished more\ndivines than any man of my acquaintance. I have read several of\nhis debates. In discussion he is quick, pertinent, logical, and,\nabove all, good natured.\n\nThere is not in all he says a touch of malice. He can afford to\nbe generous to his antagonists, because he is always the victor,\nand is always sure of the victory. Last winter wherever I went,\nI heard the most favorable accounts of Mr. Watts. All who heard\nhim were delighted.\n\nMr. Putnam is one of the most thorough believers in intellectual\nliberty in the world. He believes with all his heart, is full of\nenthusiasm, ready to make any sacrifice, and to endure any hardship.\nHad he lived a few years ago, he would have been a martyr. He has\nwritten some of the most stirring appeals to the Liberals of this\ncountry that I have ever read. He believes that Freethought has\na future; that the time is coming when the superstitions of the\nworld will either be forgotten, or remembered--some of them with\nsmiles--most of them with tears. Mr. Putnam, although endowed with\na poetic nature, with poetic insight, clings to the known, builds\nupon the experience of man, and believes in fancies only when they\nare used as the wings of a fact. I have never met a man who appeared\nto be more thoroughly devoted to the great cause of mental freedom.\nI have read his books with great interest, and find in them many\npages filled with philosophy and pathos. I have met him often and\nI never heard him utter a harsh word about any human being. His\ngood nature is as unfailing as the air. His abilities are of the\nhighest order. It is a positive pleasure to meet him. He is so\nenthusiastic, so unselfish, so natural, so appreciative of others,\nso thoughtful for the cause, and so careless of himself, that he\ncompels the admiration of every one who really loves the just and\ntrue.\n\n--_The Truth Seeker_, New York, September 5, 1885.\n\n\nTHE PRESIDENT AND SENATE.\n\n_Question_. What have you to say with reference to the respective\nattitudes of the President and Senate?\n\n_Answer_. I don't think there is any doubt as to the right of the\nSenate to call on the President for information. Of course that\nmeans for what information he has. When a duty devolves upon two\npersons, one of them has no right to withhold any facts calculated\nto throw any light on the question that both are to decide. The\nPresident cannot appoint any officer who has to be confirmed by\nthe Senate; he can simply nominate. The Senate cannot even suggest\na name; it can only pass upon the person nominated. If it is called\nupon for counsel and advice, how can it give advice without knowing\nthe facts and circumstances? The President must have a reason for\nwishing to make a change. He should give that reason to the Senate\nwithout waiting to be asked. He has assured the country that he\nis a civil service reformer; that no man is to be turned out because\nhe is a Republican, and no man appointed because he is a Democrat.\nNow, the Senate has given the President an opportunity to prove\nthat he has acted as he has talked. If the President feels that\nhe is bound to carry out the civil-service law, ought not the Senate\nto feel in the same way? Is it not the duty of the Senate to see\nto it that the President does not, with its advice and consent,\nviolate the civil service law? Is the consent of the Senate a mere\nmatter of form? In these appointments the President is not\nindependent of or above the Senate; they are equal, and each has\nthe right to be \"honor bright\" with the other, at least.\n\nAs long as this foolish law is unrepealed it must be carried out.\nNeither party is in favor of civil service reform, and never was.\nThe Republican party did not carry it out, and did not intend to.\nThe President has the right to nominate. Under the law as it is\nnow, when the President wants to appoint a clerk, or when one of\nhis secretaries wants one, four names are sent, and from these four\nnames a choice has to be made. This is clearly an invasion of the\nrights of the Executive. If they have the right to compel the\nPresident to choose from four, why not from three, or two? Why\nnot name the one, and have done with it? The law is worse than\nunconstitutional--it is absurd.\n\nBut in this contest the Senate, in my judgment, is right. In my\nopinion, by the time Cleveland goes out most of the offices will\nbe filled with Democrats. If the Republicans succeed next time,\nI know, and everybody knows, that they will never rest easy until\nthey get the Democrats out. They will shout \"offensive partisanship.\"\nThe truth is, the theory is wrong. Every citizen should take an\ninterest in politics. A good man should not agree to keep silent\njust for the sake of an office. A man owes his best thoughts to\nhis country. If he ought to defend his country in time of war,\nand under certain circumstances give his life for it, can we say\nthat in time of peace he is under no obligation to discharge what\nhe believes to be a duty, if he happens to hold an office? Must\nhe sell his birthright for the sake of being a doorkeeper? The\nwhole doctrine is absurd and never will be carried out.\n\n_Question_. What do you think as to the presidential race?\n\n_Answer_. That is a good way off. I think the people can hardly\nbe roused to enthusiasm by the old names. Our party must take\nanother step forward. We cannot live on what we have done; we must\nseek power for the sake, not of power, but for the accomplishment\nof a purpose. We must reform the tariff. We must settle the\nquestion of silver. We must have sense enough to know what the\ncountry needs, and courage enough to tell it. By reforming the\ntariff, I mean protect that and that only that needs protection--\nlaws for the country and not for the few. We want honest money;\nwe want a dollar's worth of gold in a silver dollar, and a dollar's\nworth of silver in a gold dollar. We want to make them of equal\nvalue. Bi-metallism does not mean that eighty cents' worth of\nsilver is worth one hundred in gold. The Republican party must\nget back its conscience and be guided by it in deciding the questions\nthat arise. Great questions are pressing for solution. Thousands\nof working people are in want. Business is depressed. The future\nis filled with clouds. What does the Republican party propose?\nMust we wait for mobs to inaugurate reform? Must we depend on\npolice or statesmen? Should we wait and crush by brute force or\nshould we prevent?\n\nThe toilers demand that eight hours should constitute a day's work.\nUpon this question what does our party say? Labor saving machines\nought to lighten the burdens of the laborers. It will not do to\nsay \"over production\" and keep on inventing machines and refuse to\nshorten the hours. What does our party say? The rich can take\ncare of themselves if the mob will let them alone, and there will\nbe no mob if there is no widespread want. Hunger is a communist.\nThe next candidate of the Republican party must be big enough and\ncourageous enough to answer these questions. If we find that kind\nof a candidate we shall succeed--if we do not, we ought not.\n\n--_Chicago Inter-Ocean_, February, 1886.\n\n\nATHEISM AND CITIZENSHIP.\n\n_Question_. Have you noticed the decision of Mr. Nathaniel Jarvis,\nJr., clerk of the Naturalization Bureau of the Court of Common\nPleas, that an Atheist cannot become a citizen?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, but I do not think it necessary for a man to be a\ntheist in order to become or to remain a citizen of this country.\nThe various laws, from 1790 up to 1828, provided that the person\nwishing to be naturalized might make oath or affirmation. The\nfirst exception you will find in the Revised Statutes of the United\nStates passed in 1873-74, section 2,165, as follows:--\"An alien\nmay be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the\nfollowing manner, and not otherwise:--First, he shall declare on\noath, before a Circuit or District Court of the United States,\netc.\" I suppose Mr. Jarvis felt it to be his duty to comply with\nthis section. In this section there is nothing about affirmation\n--only the word \"oath\" is used--and Mr. Jarvis came to the conclusion\nthat an Atheist could not take an oath, and, therefore, could not\ndeclare his intention legally to become a citizen of the United\nStates. Undoubtedly Mr. Jarvis felt it his duty to stand by the\nlaw and to see to it that nobody should become a citizen of this\ncountry who had not a well defined belief in the existence of a\nbeing that he could not define and that no man has ever been able\nto define. In other words, that he should be perfectly convinced\nthat there is a being \"without body, parts or passions,\" who presides\nover the destinies of this world, and more especially those of New\nYork in and about that part known as City Hall Park.\n\n_Question_. Was not Mr. Jarvis right in standing by the law?\n\n_Answer_. If Mr. Jarvis is right, neither Humboldt nor Darwin\ncould have become a citizen of the United States. Wagner, the\ngreatest of musicians, not being able to take an oath, would have\nbeen left an alien. Under this ruling Haeckel, Spencer and Tyndall\nwould be denied citizenship--that is to say, the six greatest men\nproduced by the human race in the nineteenth century, were and are\nunfit to be citizens of the United States. Those who have placed\nthe human race in debt cannot be citizens of the Republic. On the\nother hand, the ignorant wife beater, the criminal, the pauper\nraised in the workhouse, could take the necessary oath and would\nbe welcomed by New York \"with arms outstretched as she would fly.\"\n\n_Question_. You have quoted one statute. Is there no other\napplicable to this case?\n\n_Answer_. I am coming to that. If Mr. Jarvis will take the pains\nto read not only the law of naturalization in section 2,165 of the\nRevised Statutes of the United States, but the very first chapter\nin the book, \"Title I.,\" he will find in the very first section\nthis sentence: \"The requirements of any 'oath' shall be deemed\ncomplied with by making affirmation in official form.\" This applies\nto section 2,165. Of course an Atheist can affirm, and the statute\nprovides that wherever an oath is required affirmation may be made.\n\n_Question_. Did you read the recent action of Judge O'Gorman, of\nthe Superior Court, in refusing naturalization papers to an applicant\nbecause he had not read the Constitution of the United States?\n\n_Answer_. I did. The United States Constitution is a very important\ndocument, a good, sound document, but it is talked about a great\ndeal more than it is read. I'll venture that you may commence at\nthe Battery to interview merchants and other business men about\nthe Constitution and you will talk with a hundred before you will\nfind one who has ever read it.\n\n--_New York Herald_, August 8, 1886.\n\n\nTHE LABOR QUESTION.\n\n_Question_. What is your remedy, Colonel, for the labor troubles\nof the day?\n\n_Answer_. One remedy is this: I should like to see the laboring\nmen succeed. I should like to see them have a majority in Congress\nand with a President of their own. I should like to see this so\nthat they could satisfy themselves how little, after all, can be\naccomplished by legislation. The moment responsibility should\ntouch their shoulders they would become conservative. They would\nfind that making a living in this world is an individual affair,\nand that each man must look out for himself. They would soon find\nthat the Government cannot take care of the people. The people\nmust support the Government. Everything cannot be regulated by\nlaw. The factors entering into this problem are substantially\ninfinite and beyond the intellectual grasp of any human being.\nPerhaps nothing in the world will convince the laboring man how\nlittle can be accomplished by law until there is opportunity of\ntrying. To discuss the question will do good, so I am in favor of\nits discussion. To give the workingmen a trial will do good, so\nI am in favor of giving them a trial.\n\n_Question_. But you have not answered my question: I asked you\nwhat could be done, and you have told me what could not be done.\nNow, is there not some better organization of society that will\nhelp in this trouble?\n\n_Answer_. Undoubtedly. Unless humanity is a failure, society will\nimprove from year to year and from age to age. There will be, as\nthe years go by, less want, less injustice, and the gifts of nature\nwill be more equally divided, but there will never come a time when\nthe weak can do as much as the strong, or when the mentally weak\ncan accomplish as much as the intellectually strong. There will\nforever be inequality in society; but, in my judgment, the time\nwill come when an honest, industrious person need not want. In my\njudgment, that will come, not through governmental control, not\nthrough governmental slavery, not through what is called Socialism,\nbut through liberty and through individuality. I can conceive of\nno greater slavery than to have everything done by the Government.\nI want free scope given to individual effort. In time some things\nthat governments have done will be removed. The creation of a\nnobility, the giving of vast rights to corporations, and the\nbestowment of privileges on the few will be done away with. In\nother words, governmental interference will cease and man will be\nleft more to himself. The future will not do away with want by\ncharity, which generally creates more want than it alleviates, but\nby justice and intelligence. Shakespeare says, \"There is no darkness\nbut ignorance,\" and it might be added that ignorance is the mother\nof most suffering.\n\n--_The Enquirer_, Cincinnati, Ohio, September 30, 1886.\n\n\nRAILROADS AND POLITICS.\n\n_Question_. You are intimately acquainted with the great railroad\nmanagers and the great railroad systems, and what do you think is\nthe great need of the railways to-day?\n\n_Answer_. The great need of the railroads to-day is more business,\nmore cars, better equipments, better pay for the men and less\ngambling in Wall Street.\n\n_Question_. Is it your experience that public men usually ride on\npasses?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, whenever they can get them. Passes are for the\nrich. Only those are expected to pay who can scarcely afford it.\nNothing shortens a journey, nothing makes the road as smooth,\nnothing keeps down the dust and keeps out the smoke like a pass.\n\n_Question_. Don't you think that the pass system is an injustice\n--that is, that ordinary travelers are taxed for the man who rides\non a pass?\n\n_Answer_. Certainly, those who pay, pay for those who do not.\nThis is one of the misfortunes of the obscure. It is so with\neverything. The big fish live on the little ones.\n\n_Question_. Are not parallel railroads an evil?\n\n_Answer_. No, unless they are too near together. Competition does\nsome good and some harm, but it must exist. All these things must\nbe left to take care of themselves. If the Government interferes\nit is at the expense of the manhood and liberty of the people.\n\n_Question_. But wouldn't it be better for the people if the\nrailroads were managed by the Government as is the Post-Office?\n\n_Answer_. No, everything that individual can do should be left to\nthem. If the Government takes charge of the people they become\nweak and helpless. The people should take charge of the Government.\nGive the folks a chance.\n\n_Question_. In the next presidential contest what will be the main\nissue?\n\n_Answer_. The Maine issue!\n\n_Question_. Would you again refuse to take the stump for Mr. Blaine\nif he should be renominated, and if so, why?\n\n_Answer_. I do not expect to take the stump for anybody. Mr.\nBlaine is probably a candidate, and if he is nominated there will\nbe plenty of people on the stump--or fence--or up a tree or somewhere\nin the woods.\n\n_Question_. What are the most glaring mistakes of Cleveland's\nadministration?\n\n_Answer_. First, accepting the nomination. Second, taking the\noath of office. Third, not resigning.\n\n--_Times Star_, Cincinnati, September 30, 1886.\n\n\nPROHIBITION.\n\n_Question_. How much importance do you attach to the present\nprohibition movement?\n\n_Answer_. No particular importance. I am opposed to prohibition\nand always have been, and hope always to be. I do not want the\nLegislature to interfere in these matters. I do not believe that\nthe people can be made temperate by law. Men and women are not\nmade great and good by the law. There is no good in the world that\ncannot be abused. Prohibition fills the world with spies and\ntattlers, and, besides that, where a majority of the people are\nnot in favor of it the law will not be enforced; and where a majority\nof the people are in favor of it there is not much need of the law.\nWhere a majority are against it, juries will violate their oath,\nand witnesses will get around the truth, and the result is\ndemoralization. Take wine and malt liquors out of the world and\nwe shall lose a vast deal of good fellowship; the world would lose\nmore than it would gain. There is a certain sociability about wine\nthat I should hate to have taken from the earth. Strong liquors\nthe folks had better let alone. If prohibition succeeds, and wines\nand malt liquors go, the next thing will be to take tobacco away,\nand the next thing all other pleasures, until prayer meetings will\nbe the only places of enjoyment.\n\n_Question_. Do you care to say who your choice is for Republican\nnominee for President in 1888?\n\n_Answer_. I now promise that I will answer this question either\nin May or June, 1888. At present my choice is not fixed, and is\nliable to change at any moment, and I need to leave it free, so\nthat it can change from time to time as the circumstances change.\nI will, however, tell you privately that I think it will probably\nbe a new man, somebody on whom the Republicans can unite. I have\nmade a good many inquiries myself to find out who this man is to\nbe, but in every instance the answer has been determined by the\nlocation in which the gentleman lived who gave the answer. Let us\nwait.\n\n_Question_. Do you think the Republican party should take a decided\nstand on the temperance issue?\n\n_Answer_. I do; and that decided stand should be that temperance\nis an individual question, something with which the State and Nation\nhave nothing to do. Temperance is a thing that the law cannot\ncontrol. You might as well try to control music, painting, sculpture,\nor metaphysics, as the question of temperance. As life becomes\nmore valuable, people will learn to take better care of it. There\nis something more to be desired even than temperance, and that is\nliberty. I do not believe in putting out the sun because weeds\ngrow. I should rather have some weeds than go without wheat and\ncorn. The Republican party should represent liberty and individuality;\nit should keep abreast of the real spirit of the age; the Republican\nparty ought to be intelligent enough to know that progress has been\nmarked not by the enactment of new laws, but by the repeal of old\nones.\n\n--_Evening Traveler_, Boston, October, 1886.\n\n\nHENRY GEORGE AND LABOR.\n\n_Question_. It is said, Colonel Ingersoll, that you are for Henry\nGeorge?\n\n_Answer_. Of course; I think it the duty of the Republicans to\ndefeat the Democracy--a solemn duty--and I believe that they have\na chance to elect George; that is to say, an opportunity to take\nNew York from their old enemy. If the Republicans stand by George\nhe will succeed. All the Democratic factions are going to unite\nto beat the workingmen. What a picture! Now is the time for the\nRepublicans to show that all their sympathies are not given to\nbankers, corporations and millionaires. They were on the side of\nthe slave--they gave liberty to millions. Let them take another\nstep and extend their hands to the sons of toil.\n\nMy heart beats with those who bear the burdens of this poor world.\n\n_Question_. Do you not think that capital is entitled to\nprotection?\n\n_Answer_. I am in favor of accomplishing all reforms in a legal\nand orderly way, and I want the laboring people of this country to\nappeal to the ballot. All classes and all interests must be content\nto abide the result.\n\nI want the laboring people to show that they are intelligent enough\nto stand by each other. Henry George is their natural leader.\nLet them be true to themselves by being true to him. The great\nquestions between capital and labor must be settled peaceably.\nThere is no excuse for violence, and no excuse for contempt and\nscorn. No country can be prosperous while the workers want and\nthe idlers waste. Those who do the most should have the most.\nThere is no civilized country, so far as I know, but I believe\nthere will be, and I want to hasten they day when the map of the\nworld will give the boundaries of that blessed land.\n\n_Question_. Do you agree with George's principles? Do you believe\nin socialism?\n\n_Answer_. I do not understand that George is a Socialist. He is\non the side of those that work--so am I. He wants to help those\nthat need help--so do I. The rich can take care of themselves.\nI shed no tears over the miseries of capital. I think of the men\nin mines and factories, in huts, hovels and cellars; of the poor\nsewing women; of the poor, the hungry and the despairing. The\nworld must be made better through intelligence. I do not go with\nthe destroyers, with those that hate the successful, that hate the\ngenerous, simply because they are rich. Wealth is the surplus\nproduced by labor, and the wealth of the world should keep the\nworld from want.\n\n--_New York Herald_, October 13, 1886.\n\n\nLABOR QUESTION AND SOCIALISM.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of Henry George for mayor?\n\n_Answer_. Several objections have been urged, not to what Mr.\nGeorge has done, but to what Mr. George has thought, and he is the\nonly candidate up to this time against whom a charge of this\ncharacter could be made. Among other things, he seems to have\nentertained an idea to the effect that a few men should not own\nthe entire earth; that a child coming into the world has a right\nto standing room, and that before he walks, his mother has a right\nto standing room while she holds him. He insists that if it were\npossible to bottle the air, and sell it as we do mineral water, it\nwould be hardly fair for the capitalists of the world to embark in\nsuch a speculation, especially where millions were allowed to die\nsimply because they were not able to buy breath at \"pool prices.\"\nMr. George seems to think that the time will come when capital will\nbe intelligent enough and civilized enough to take care of itself.\nHe has a dream that poverty and crime and all the evils that go\nhand in hand with partial famine, with lack of labor, and all the\ndiseases born of living in huts and cellars, born of poor food and\npoor clothing and of bad habits, will disappear, and that the world\nwill be really fit to live in. He goes so far as to insist that\nmen ought to have more than twenty-three or twenty-four dollars a\nmonth for digging coal, and that they ought not to be compelled to\nspend that money in the store or saloon of the proprietor of the\nmine. He has also stated on several occasions that a man ought\nnot to drive a street car for sixteen or eighteen hours a day--that\neven a street-car driver ought to have the privilege now and then\nof seeing his wife, or at least one of the children, awake. And\nhe has gone so far as to say that a letter-carrier ought not to\nwork longer in each day for the United States than he would for a\ncivilized individual.\n\nTo people that imagine that this world is already perfection; that\nthe condition of no one should be bettered except their own, these\nideas seem dangerous. A man who has already amassed a million,\nand who has no fear for the future, and who says: \"I will employ\nthe cheapest labor and make men work as long as they can possibly\nendure the toil,\" will regard Mr. George as an impractical man.\nIt is very probable that all of us will be dead before all the\ntheories of Mr. George are put in practice. Some of them, however,\nmay at some time benefit mankind; and so far as I am concerned, I\nam willing to help hasten the day, although it may not come while\nI live. I do not know that I agree with many of the theories of\nMr. George. I know that I do not agree with some of them. But\nthere is one thing in which I do agree with him, and that is, in\nhis effort to benefit the human race, in his effort to do away with\nsome of the evils that now afflict mankind. I sympathize with him\nin his endeavor to shorten the hours of labor, to increase the well-\nbeing of laboring men, to give them better houses, better food,\nand in every way to lighten the burdens that now bear upon their\nbowed backs. It may be that very little can be done by law, except\nto see that they are not absolutely abused; to see that the mines\nin which they work are supplied with air and with means of escape\nin time of danger; to prevent the deforming of children by forcing\nupon them the labor of men; to shorten the hours of toil, and to\ngive all laborers certain liens, above all other claims, for their\nwork. It is easy to see that in this direction something may be\ndone by law.\n\n_Question_. Colonel Ingersoll, are you a Socialist?\n\n_Answer_. I am an Individualist instead of a Socialist. I am a\nbeliever in individuality and in each individual taking care of\nhimself, and I want the Government to do just as little as it can\nconsistently with the safety of the nation, and I want as little\nlaw as possible--only as much as will protect life, reputation and\nproperty by punishing criminals and by enforcing honest contracts.\nBut if a government gives privileges to a few, the few must not\noppress the many. The Government has no right to bestow any\nprivilege upon any man or upon any corporation, except for the\npublic good. That which is a special privilege to the few, should\nbe a special benefit to the many. And whenever the privileged few\nabuse the privilege so that it becomes a curse to the many, the\nprivilege, whatever it is, should be withdrawn. I do not pretend\nto know enough to suggest a remedy for all the evils of society.\nI doubt if one human mind could take into consideration the almost\ninfinite number of factors entering into such a problem. And this\nfact that no one knows, is the excuse for trying. While I may not\nbelieve that a certain theory will work, still, if I feel sure it\nwill do no harm, I am willing to see it tried.\n\n_Question_. Do you think that Mr. George would make a good mayor?\n\n_Answer_. I presume he would. He is a thoughtful, prudent man.\nHis reputation for honesty has never, so far as I know, been called\nin question. It certainly does not take a genius to be mayor of\nNew York. If so, there have been some years when there was hardly\na mayor. I take it that a clear-headed, honest man, whose only\nobject is to do his duty, and with courage enough to stand by his\nconscience, would make a good mayor of New York or of any other\ncity.\n\n_Question_. Are you in sympathy with the workingmen and their\nobjects?\n\n_Answer_. I am in sympathy with laboring men of all kinds, whether\nthey labor with hand or brain. The Knights of Labor, I believe,\ndo not allow a lawyer to become a member. I am somewhat wider in\nmy sympathies. No men in the world struggle more heroically; no\nmen in the world have suffered more, or carried a heavier cross,\nor worn a sharper crown of thorns, than those that have produced\nwhat we call the literature of our race. So my sympathies extend\nall the way from hod-carriers to sculptors; from well-diggers to\nastronomers. If the objects of the laboring men are to improve\ntheir condition without injuring others; to have homes and firesides,\nand wives and children; plenty to eat, good clothes to wear; to\ndevelop their minds, to educate their children--in short, to become\nprosperous and civilized, I sympathize with them, and hope they\nwill succeed. I have not the slightest sympathy with those that\nwish to accomplish all these objects through brute force. A Nihilist\nmay be forgiven in Russia--may even be praised in Russia; a Socialist\nmay be forgiven in Germany; and certainly a Home-ruler can be\npardoned in Ireland, but in the United States there is no place\nfor Anarchist, Socialist or Dynamiter. In this country the political\npower has been fairly divided. Poverty has just as many votes as\nwealth. No man can be so poor as not to have a ballot; no man is\nrich enough to have two; and no man can buy another vote, unless\nsomebody is mean enough and contemptible enough to sell; and if he\ndoes sell his vote, he never should complain about the laws or\ntheir administration. So the foolish and the wise are on an\nequality, and the political power of this country is divided so\nthat each man is a sovereign.\n\nNow, the laboring people are largely in the majority in this country.\nIf there are any laws oppressing them, they should have them\nrepealed. I want the laboring people--and by the word \"laboring\"\nnow, I include only the men that they include by that word--to\nunite; I want them to show that they have the intelligence to act\ntogether, and sense enough to vote for a friend. I want them to\nconvince both the other great parties that they cannot be purchased.\nThis will be an immense step in the right direction.\n\nI have sometimes thought that I should like to see the laboring\nmen in power, so that they would realize how little, after all,\ncan be done by law. All that any man should ask, so far as the\nGovernment is concerned, is a fair chance to compete with his\nneighbors. Personally, I am for the abolition of all special\nprivileges that are not for the general good. My principal hope\nof the future is the civilization of my race; the development not\nonly of the brain, but of the heart. I believe the time will come\nwhen we shall stop raising failures, when we shall know something\nof the laws governing human beings. I believe the time will come\nwhen we shall not produce deformed persons, natural criminals. In\nother words, I think the world is going to grow better and better.\nThis may not happen to this nation or to what we call our race,\nbut it may happen to some other race, and all that we do in the\nright direction hastens that day and that race.\n\n_Question_. Do you think that the old parties are about to die?\n\n_Answer_. It is very hard to say. The country is not old enough\nfor tables of mortality to have been calculated upon parties. I\nsuppose a party, like anything else, has a period of youth, of\nmanhood and decay. The Democratic party is not dead. Some men\ngrow physically strong as they grow mentally weak. The Democratic\nparty lived out of office, and in disgrace, for twenty-five years,\nand lived to elect a President. If the Democratic party could live\non disgrace for twenty-five years it now looks as though the\nRepublican party, on the memory of its glory and of its wonderful\nand unparalleled achievements, might manage to creep along for a\nfew years more.\n\n--_New York World_, October 26, 1886.\n\n\nHENRY GEORGE AND SOCIALISM.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of the result of the election?\n\n_Answer_. I find many dead on the field whose faces I recognize.\nI see that Morrison has taken a \"horizontal\" position. Free trade\nseems to have received an exceedingly black eye. Carlisle, in my\njudgment, one of the very best men in Congress, has been defeated\nsimply because he is a free trader, and I suppose you can account\nfor Hurd's defeat in the same way. The people believe in protection\nalthough they generally admit that the tariff ought to be reformed.\nI believe in protecting \"infant industries,\" but I do not believe\nin rocking the cradle when the infant is seven feet high and wears\nnumber twelve boots.\n\n_Question_. Do you sympathize with the Socialists, or do you think\nthat the success of George would promote socialism?\n\n_Answer_. I have said frequently that if I lived in Russia I should\nin all probability be a Nihilist. I can conceive of no government\nthat would not be as good as that of Russia, and I would consider\n_no_ government far preferable to that government. Any possible\nstate of anarchy is better than organized crime, because in the\nchaos of anarchy justice may be done by accident, but in a government\norganized for the perpetuation of slavery, and for the purpose of\ncrushing out of the human brain every noble thought, justice does\nnot live. In Germany I would probably be a Socialist--to this\nextent, that I would want the political power honestly divided\namong the people. I can conceive of no circumstance in which I\ncould support Bismarck. I regard Bismarck as a projection of the\nMiddle Ages, as a shadow that has been thrown across the sunlight\nof modern civilization, and in that shadow grow all the bloodless\ncrimes. Now, in Ireland, of course, I believe in home rule. In\nthis country I am an Individualist. The political power here is\nequally divided. Poverty and wealth have the same power at the\nballot-box. Intelligence and ignorance are on an equality here,\nsimply because all men have a certain interest in the government\nwhere they live. I hate above all other things the tyranny of a\ngovernment. I do not want a government to send a policeman along\nwith me to keep me from buying eleven eggs for a dozen. I will\ntake care of myself. I want the people to do everything they can\ndo, and the Government to keep its hands off, because if the\nGovernment attends to all these matters the people lose manhood,\nand in a little while become serfs, and there will arise some strong\nmind and some powerful hand that will reduce them to actual slavery.\nSo I am in favor or personal liberty to the largest extent. Whenever\nthe Government grants privileges to the few, these privileges should\nbe for the benefit of the many, and when they cease to be for the\nbenefit of the many, they should be taken from the few and used by\nthe government itself for the benefit of the whole people. And I\nwant to see in this country the Government so administered that\njustice will be done to all as nearly as human institutions can\nproduce such a result. Now, I understand that in any state of\nsociety there will be failures. We have failures among the working\npeople. We have had some failures in Congress. I will not mention\nthe names, because your space is limited. There have been failures\nin the pulpit, at the bar; in fact, in every pursuit of life you\nwill presume we shall have failures with us for a great while; at\nleast until the establishment of the religion of the body, when we\nshall cease to produce failures; and I have faith enough in the\nhuman race to believe that that time will come, but I do not expect\nit during my life.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the income tax as a step toward\nthe accomplishment of what you desire?\n\n_Answer_. There are some objections to an income tax. First, the\nespionage that it produces on the part of the Government. Second,\nthe amount of perjury that it annually produces. Men hate to have\ntheir business inquired into if they are not doing well. They\noften pay a very large tax to make their creditors think they are\nprosperous. Others by covering up, avoid the tax. But I will say\nthis with regard to taxation: The great desideratum is stability.\nIf we tax only the land, and that were the only tax, in a little\nwhile every other thing, and the value of every other thing, would\nadjust itself in relation to that tax, and perfect justice would\nbe the result. That is to say, if it were stable long enough the\nburden would finally fall upon the right backs in every department.\nThe trouble with taxation is that it is continually changing--not\nwaiting for the adjustment that will naturally follow provided it\nis stable. I think the end, so far as land is concerned, could be\nreached by cumulative taxation--that is to say, a man with a certain\namount of land paying a very small per cent., with more land, and\nincreased per cent., and let that per cent. increase rapidly enough\nso that no man could afford to hold land that he did not have a\nuse for. So I believe in cumulative taxation in regard to any kind\nof wealth. Let a man worth ten million dollars pay a greater per\ncent. than one worth one hundred thousand, because he is able to\npay it. The other day a man was talking to me about having the\ndead pay the expenses of the Government; that whenever a man died\nworth say five million dollars, one million should go to the\nGovernment; that if he died worth ten million dollars, three millions\nshould go to the Government; if he died worth twenty million dollars,\neight million should go to the Government, and so on. He said that\nin this way the expenses of the Government could be borne by the\ndead. I should be in favor of cumulative taxation upon legacies--\nthe greater the legacy, the greater the per cent. of taxation.\n\nBut, of course, I am not foolish enough to suppose that I understand\nthese questions. I am giving you a few guesses. My only desire\nis to guess right. I want to see the people of this world live\nfor this world, and I hope the time will come when a civilized man\nwill understand that he cannot be perfectly happy while anybody\nelse is miserable; that a perfectly civilized man could not enjoy\na dinner knowing that others were starving; that he could not enjoy\nthe richest robes if he knew that some of his fellow-men in rags\nand tatters were shivering in the blast. In other words, I want\nto carry out the idea there that I have so frequently uttered with\nregard to the other world; that is, that no gentleman angel could\nbe perfectly happy knowing that somebody else was in hell.\n\n_Question_. What are the chances for the Republican party in 1888?\n\n_Answer_. If it will sympathize with the toilers, as it did with\nthe slaves; if it will side with the needy; if it will only take\nthe right side it will elect the next President. The poor should\nnot resort to violence; the rich should appeal to the intelligence\nof the working people. These questions cannot be settled by envy\nand scorn. The motto of both parties should be: \"Come, let us\nreason together.\" The Republican party was the grandest organization\nthat ever existed. It was brave, intelligent and just. It sincerely\nloved the right. A certificate of membership was a patent of\nnobility. If it will only stand by the right again, its victorious\nbanner will float over all the intelligent sons of toil.\n\n--_The Times_, Chicago, Illinois, November 4, 1886.\n\n\nREPLY TO THE REV. B. F. MORSE.*\n\n[* At the usual weekly meeting of the Baptist ministers at the\nPublication Rooms yesterday, the Rev. Dr. B. F. Morse read an essay\non \"Christianity vs. Materialism.\" His contention was that all\nnature showed that design, not evolution, was its origin.\n\nIn his concluding remarks Dr. Morse said that he knew from\nunquestionable authority, that Robert G. Ingersoll did not believe\nwhat he uttered in his lectures, and that to get out of a financial\nembarrassment he looked around for a money making scheme that could\nbe put into immediate execution. To lecture against Christianity\nwas the most rapid way of giving him the needed cash and, what was\nquite as acceptable to him, at the same time, notoriety.]\n\nThis aquatic or web-footed theologian who expects to go to heaven\nby diving is not worth answering. Nothing can be more idiotic than\nto answer an argument by saying he who makes it does not believe\nit. Belief has nothing to do with the cogency or worth of an\nargument. There is another thing. This man, or rather this\nminister, says that I attacked Christianity simply to make money.\nIs it possible that, after preachers have had the field for eighteen\nhundred years, the way to make money is to attack the clergy? Is\nthis intended as a slander against me or the ministers?\n\nThe trouble is that my arguments cannot be answered. All the\npreachers in the world cannot prove that slavery is better than\nliberty. They cannot show that all have not an equal right to\nthink. They cannot show that all have not an equal right to express\ntheir thoughts. They cannot show that a decent God will punish a\ndecent man for making the best guess he can. This is all there is\nabout it.\n\n--_The Herald_, New York, December 14, 1886.\n\n\nINGERSOLL ON McGLYNN.\n\nThe attitude of the Roman Catholic Church in Dr. McGlynn's case is\nconsistent with the history and constitution of the Catholic Church\n--perfectly consistent with its ends, its objects, and its means--\nand just as perfectly inconsistent with intellectual liberty and\nthe real civilization of the human race.\n\nWhen a man becomes a Catholic priest, he has been convinced that\nhe ought not to think for himself upon religious questions. He\nhas become convinced that the church is the only teacher--that he\nhas a right to think only to enforce its teachings. From that\nmoment he is a moral machine. The chief engineer resides at Rome,\nand he gives his orders through certain assistant engineers until\nthe one is reached who turns the crank, and the machine has nothing\nto do one way or the other. This machine is paid for giving up\nhis liberty by having machines under him who have also given up\ntheirs. While somebody else turns his crank, he has the pleasure\nof turning a crank belonging to somebody below him.\n\nOf course, the Catholic Church is supposed to be the only perfect\ninstitution on earth. All others are not only imperfect, but\nunnecessary. All others have been made either by man, or by the\nDevil, or by a partnership, and consequently cannot be depended\nupon for the civilization of man.\n\nThe Catholic Church gets its power directly from God, and is the\nonly institution now in the world founded by God. There was never\nany other, so far as I know, except polygamy and slavery and a\ncrude kind of monarchy, and they have been, for the most part,\nabolished.\n\nThe Catholic Church must be true to itself. It must claim everything,\nand get what it can. It alone is infallible. It alone has all\nthe wisdom of this world. It alone has the right to exist. All\nother interests are secondary. To be a Catholic is of the first\nimportance. Human liberty is nothing. Wealth, position, food,\nclothing, reputation, happiness--all these are less than worthless\ncompared with what the Catholic Church promises to the man who will\nthrow all these away.\n\nA priest must preach what his bishop tells him. A bishop must\npreach what his archbishop tells him. The pope must preach what\nhe says God tells him.\n\nDr. McGlynn cannot make a compromise with the Catholic Church. It\nnever compromises when it is in the majority.\n\nI do not mean by this that the Catholic Church is worse than any\nother. All are alike in this regard. Every sect, no matter how\ninsignificant; every church, no matter how powerful, asks precisely\nthe same thing from every member--that is to say, a surrender of\nintellectual freedom. The Catholic Church wants the same as the\nBaptist, the Presbyterian, and the Methodist--it wants the whole\nearth. It is ambitious to be the one supreme power. It hopes to\nsee the world upon its knees, with all its tongues thrust out for\nwafers. It has the arrogance of humility and the ferocity of\nuniversal forgiveness. In this respect it resembles every other\nsect. Every religion is a system of slavery.\n\nOf course, the religionists say that they do not believe in\npersecution; that they do not believe in burning and hanging and\nwhipping or loading with chains a man simply because he is an\nInfidel. They are willing to leave all this with God, knowing that\na being of infinite goodness will inflict all these horrors and\ntortures upon an honest man who differs with the church.\n\nIn case Dr. McGlynn is deprived of his priestly functions, it is\nhard to say what effect it will have upon his church and the labor\nparty in the country.\n\nSo long as a man believes that a church has eternal joy in store\nfor him, so long as he believes that a church holds within its hand\nthe keys of heaven and hell, it will be hard to make him trade off\nthe hope of everlasting happiness for a few good clothes and a\nlittle good food and higher wages here. He finally thinks that,\nafter all, he had better work for less and go a little hungry, and\nbe an angel forever.\n\nI hope, however, that a good many people who have been supporting\nthe Catholic Church by giving tithes of the wages of weariness will\nsee, and clearly see, that Catholicism is not their friend; that\nthe church cannot and will not support them; that, on the contrary,\nthey must support the church. I hope they will see that all the\nprayers have to be paid for, although not one has ever been answered.\nI hope they will perceive that the church is on the side of wealth\nand power, that the mitre is the friend of the crown, that the\naltar is the sworn brother of the throne. I hope they will finally\nknow that the church cares infinitely more for the money of the\nmillionaire than for the souls of the poor.\n\nOf course, there are thousands of individual exceptions. I am\nspeaking of the church as an institution, as a corporation--and\nwhen I say the church, I include all churches. It is said of\ncorporations in general, that they have no soul, and it may truthfully\nbe said of the church that it has less than any other. It lives\non alms. It gives nothing for what it gets. It has no sympathy.\nBeggars never weep over the misfortunes of other beggars.\n\nNothing could give me more pleasure than to see the Catholic Church\non the side of human freedom; nothing more pleasure than to see\nthe Catholics of the world--those who work and weep and toil--\nsensible enough to know that all the money paid for superstition\nis worse than lost. I wish they could see that the counting of\nbeads, and the saying of prayers and celebrating of masses, and\nall the kneelings and censer-swingings and fastings and bell-ringing,\namount to less than nothing--that all these things tend only to\nthe degradation of mankind. It is hard, I know, to find an antidote\nfor a poison that was mingled with a mother's milk.\n\nThe laboring masses, so far as the Catholics are concerned, are\nfilled with awe and wonder and fear about the church. This fear\nbegan to grow while they were being rocked in their cradles, and\nthey still imagine that the church has some mysterious power; that\nit is in direct communication with some infinite personality that\ncould, if it desired, strike then dead, or damn their souls forever.\nPersons who have no such belief, who care nothing for popes or\npriests or churches or heavens or hells or devils or gods, have\nvery little idea of the power of fear.\n\nThe old dogmas filled the brain with strange monsters. The soul\nof the orthodox Christian gropes and wanders and crawls in a kind\nof dungeon, where the strained eyes see fearful shapes, and the\nfrightened flesh shrinks from the touch of serpents.\n\nThe good part of Christianity--that is to say, kindness, morality\n--will never go down. The cruel part ought to go down. And by\nthe cruel part I mean the doctrine of eternal punishment--of allowing\nthe good to suffer for the bad--allowing innocence to pay the debt\nof guilt. So the foolish part of Christianity--that is to say,\nthe miraculous--will go down. The absurd part must perish. But\nthere will be no war about it as there was in France. Nobody\nbelieves enough in the foolish part of Christianity now to fight\nfor it. Nobody believes with intensity enough in miracles to\nshoulder a musket. There is probably not a Christian in New York\nwilling to fight for any story, no matter if the story is so old\nthat it is covered with moss. No mentally brave and intelligent\nman believes in miracles, and no intelligent man cares whether\nthere was a miracle or not, for the reason that every intelligent\nman knows that the miraculous has no possible connection with the\nmoral. \"Thou shalt not steal,\" is just as good a commandment if\nit should turn out that the flood was a drouth. \"Thou shalt not\nmurder,\" is a good and just and righteous law, and whether any\nparticular miracle was ever performed or not has nothing to do with\nthe case. There is no possible relation between these things.\n\nI am on the side not only of the physically oppressed, but of the\nmentally oppressed. I hate those who put lashes on the body, and\nI despise those who put the soul in chains. In other words, I am\nin favor of liberty. I do not wish that any man should be the\nslave of his fellow-men, or that the human race should be the slaves\nof any god, real or imaginary. Man has the right to think for\nhimself, to work for himself, to take care of himself, to get bread\nfor himself, to get a home for himself. He has a right to his own\nopinion about God, and heaven and hell; the right to learn any art\nor mystery or trade; the right to work for whom he will, for what\nhe will, and when he will.\n\nThe world belongs to the human race. There is to be no war in this\ncountry on religious opinions, except a war of words--a conflict\nof thoughts, of facts; and in that conflict the hosts of superstition\nwill go down. They may not be defeated to-day, or to-morrow, or\nnext year, or during this century, but they are growing weaker day\nby day.\n\nThis priest, McGlynn, has the courage to stand up against the\npropaganda. What would have been his fate a few years ago? What\nwould have happened to him in Spain, in Portugal, in Italy--in any\nother country that was Catholic--only a few years ago? Yet he\nstands here in New York, he refuses to obey God's vicegerent; he\nfreely gives his mind to an archbishop; he holds the holy Inquisition\nin contempt. He has done a great thing. He is undoubtedly an\nhonest man. He never should have been a Catholic. He has no\nbusiness in that church. He has ideas of his own--theories, and\nseems to be governed by principles. The Catholic Church is not\nhis place. If he remains, he must submit, he must kneel in the\nhumility of abjectness; he must receive on the back of his independence\nthe lashes of the church. If he remains, he must ask the forgiveness\nof slaves for having been a man. If he refuses to submit, the\nchurch will not have him. He will be driven to take his choice--\nto remain a member, humiliated, shunned, or go out into the great,\nfree world a citizen of the Republic, with the rights, responsibilities,\nand duties of an American citizen.\n\nI believe that Dr. McGlynn is an honest man, and that he really\nbelieves in the land theories of Mr. George. I have no confidence\nin his theories, but I have confidence that he is actuated by the\nbest and noblest motives.\n\n_Question_. Are you to go on the lecture platform again?\n\n_Answer_. I expect to after a while. I am now waiting for the\nchurch to catch up. I got so far ahead that I began almost to\nsympathize with the clergy. They looked so helpless and talked in\nsuch a weak, wandering, and wobbling kind of way that I felt as\nthough I had been cruel. From the papers I see that they are busy\ntrying to find out who the wife of Cain was. I see that the Rev.\nDr. Robinson, of New York, is now wrestling with that problem. He\nbegins to be in doubt whether Adam was the first man, whether Eve\nwas the first woman; suspects that there were other races, and that\nCain did not marry his sister, but somebody else's sister, and that\nthe somebody else was not Cain's brother. One can hardly over-\nestimate the importance of these questions, they have such a direct\nbearing on the progress of the world. If it should turn out that\nAdam was the first man, or that he was not the first man, something\nmight happen--I am not prepared to say what, but it might.\n\nIt is a curious kind of a spectacle to see a few hundred people\npaying a few thousand dollars a year for the purpose of hearing\nthese great problems discussed: \"Was Adam the first man?\" \"Who\nwas Cain's wife?\" \"Has anyone seen a map of the land of Nod?\"\n\"Where are the four rivers that ran murmuring through the groves\nof Paradise?\" \"Who was the snake? How did he walk? What language\ndid he speak?\" This turns a church into a kind of nursery, makes\na cradle of each pew, and gives to each member a rattle with which\nhe can amuse what he calls his mind.\n\nThe great theologians of Andover--the gentlemen who wear the brass\ncollars furnished by the dead founder--have been disputing among\nthemselves as to what is to become of the heathen who fortunately\ndied before meeting any missionary from that institution. One can\nalmost afford to be damned hereafter for the sake of avoiding the\ndogmas of Andover here. Nothing more absurd and childish has ever\nhappened--not in the intellectual, but in the theological world.\n\nThere is no need of the Freethinkers saying anything at present.\nThe work is being done by the church members themselves. They are\nbeginning to ask questions of the clergy. They are getting tired\nof the old ideas--tired of the consolations of eternal pain--tired\nof hearing about hell--tired of hearing the Bible quoted or talked\nabout--tired of the scheme of redemption--tired of the Trinity, of\nthe plenary inspiration of the barbarous records of a barbarous\npeople--tired of the patriarchs and prophets--tired of Daniel and\nthe goats with three horns, and the image with the clay feet, and\nthe little stone that rolled down the hill--tired of the mud man\nand the rib woman--tired of the flood of Noah, of the astronomy of\nJoshua, the geology of Moses--tired of Kings and Chronicles and\nLamentations--tired of the lachrymose Jeremiah--tired of the\nmonstrous, the malicious, and the miraculous. In short, they are\nbeginning to think. They have bowed their necks to the yoke of\nignorance and fear and impudence and superstition, until they are\nweary. They long to be free. They are tired of the services--\ntired of the meaningless prayers--tired of hearing each other say,\n\"Hear us, good Lord\"--tired of the texts, tired of the sermons,\ntired of the lies about spontaneous combustion as a punishment for\nblasphemy, tired of the bells, and they long to hear the doxology\nof superstition. They long to have Common Sense lift its hands in\nbenediction and dismiss the congregation.\n\n--_Brooklyn Citizen_, April, 1886.\n\n\nTRIAL OF THE CHICAGO ANARCHISTS.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the trial of the Chicago Anarchists\nand their chances for a new trial?\n\n_Answer_. I have paid some attention to the evidence and to the\nrulings of the court, and I have read the opinion of the Supreme\nCourt of Illinois, in which the conviction is affirmed. Of course\nthese men were tried during a period of great excitement--tried\nwhen the press demanded their conviction--when it was asserted that\nsociety was on the edge of destruction unless these men were hanged.\nUnder such circumstances, it is not easy to have a fair and impartial\ntrial. A judge should either sit beyond the reach of prejudice,\nin some calm that storms cannot invade, or he should be a kind of\noak that before any blast he would stand erect. It is hard to find\nsuch a place as I have suggested and not easy to find such a man.\nWe are all influenced more or less by our surroundings, by the\ndemands and opinions and feelings and prejudices of our fellow-\ncitizens. There is a personality made up of many individuals known\nas society. This personality has prejudices like an individual.\nIt often becomes enraged, acts without the slightest sense, and\nrepents at its leisure. It is hard to reason with a mob whether\norganized or disorganized, whether acting in the name of the law\nor of simple brute force. But in any case, where people refuse to\nbe governed by reason, they become a mob.\n\n_Question_. Do you not think that these men had a fair trial?\n\n_Answer_. I have no doubt that the court endeavored to be fair--\nno doubt that Judge Gary is a perfectly honest, upright man, but\nI think his instructions were wrong. He instructed the jury to\nthe effect that where men have talked in a certain way, and where\nthe jury believed that the result of such talk might be the commission\nof a crime, that such men are responsible for that crime. Of\ncourse, there is neither law nor sense in an instruction like this.\nI hold that it must have been the intention of the man making the\nremark, or publishing the article, or doing the thing--it must have\nbeen his intention that the crime should be committed. Men differ\nas to the effect of words, and a man may say a thing with the best\nintentions the result of which is a crime, and he may say a thing\nwith the worst of intentions and the result may not be a crime.\nThe Supreme Court of Illinois seemed to have admitted that the\ninstructions were wrong, but took the ground that it made no\ndifference with the verdict. This is a dangerous course for the\ncourt of last resort to pursue; neither is it very complimentary\nto the judge who tried the case, that his instructions had no effect\nupon the jury. Under the instructions of the court below, any man\nwho had been arrested with the seven Anarchists and of whom it\ncould be proved that he had ever said a word in favor of any change\nin government, or of other peculiar ideas, no matter whether he\nknew of the meeting at the Haymarket or not, would have been\nconvicted.\n\nI am satisfied that the defendant Fielden never intended to harm\na human being. As a matter of fact, the evidence shows that he\nwas making a speech in favor of peace at the time of the occurrence.\nThe evidence also shows that he was an exceedingly honest, industrious,\nand a very poor and philanthropic man.\n\n_Question_. Do you uphold the Anarchists?\n\n_Answer_. Certainly not. There is no place in this country for\nthe Anarchist. The source of power here is the people, and to\nattack the political power is to attack the people. If the laws\nare oppressive, it is the fault of the oppressed. If the laws\ntouch the poor and leave them without redress, it is the fault of\nthe poor. They are in a majority. The men who work for their\nliving are the very men who have the power to make every law that\nis made in the United States. There is no excuse for any resort\nto violence in this country. The boycotting by trades unions and\nby labor organizations is all wrong. Let them resort to legal\nmethods and to no other. I have not the slightest sympathy with\nthe methods that have been pursued by Anarchists, or by Socialists,\nor by any other class that has resorted to force or intimidation.\nThe ballot-box is the place to assemble. The will of the people\ncan be made known in that way, and their will can be executed. At\nthe same time, I think I understand what has produced the Anarchist,\nthe Socialist, and the agitator. In the old country, a laboring\nman, poorly clad, without quite enough to eat, with a wife in rags,\nwith a few children asking for bread--this laboring man sees the\nidle enjoying every luxury of this life; he sees on the breast of\n\"my lady\" a bonfire of diamonds; he sees \"my lord\" riding in his\npark; he sees thousands of people who from the cradle to the grave\ndo no useful act; add nothing to the intellectual or the physical\nwealth of the world; he sees labor living in the tenement house,\nin the hut; idleness and nobility in the mansion and the palace;\nthe poor man a trespasser everywhere except upon the street, where\nhe is told to \"move on,\" and in the dusty highways of the country.\nThat man naturally hates the government--the government of the few,\nthe government that lives on the unpaid labor of the many, the\ngovernment that takes the child from the parents, and puts him in\nthe army to fight the child of another poor man and woman in some\nother country. These Anarchists, these Socialists, these agitators,\nhave been naturally produced. All the things of which I have spoken\nsow in the breast of poverty the seeds of hatred and revolution.\nThese poor men, hunted by the officers of the law, cornered,\ncaptured, imprisoned, excite the sympathy of other poor men, and\nif some are dragged to the gallows and hanged, or beheaded by the\nguillotine, they become saints and martyrs, and those who sympathize\nwith them feel that they have the power, and only the power of\nhatred--the power of riot, of destruction--the power of the torch,\nof revolution, that is to say, of chaos and anarchy. The injustice\nof the higher classes makes the lower criminal. Then there is\nanother thing. The misery of the poor excites in many noble breasts\nsympathy, and the men who thus sympathize wish to better the\ncondition of their fellows. At first they depend upon reason, upon\ncalling the attention of the educated and powerful to the miseries\nof the poor. Nothing happens, no result follows. The Juggernaut\nof society moves on, and the wretches are still crushed beneath\nthe great wheels. These men who are really good at first, filled\nwith sympathy, now become indignant--they are malicious, then\ndestructive and criminal. I do not sympathize with these methods,\nbut I do sympathize with the general object that all good and\ngenerous people seek to accomplish--namely, to better the condition\nof the human race. Only the other day, in Boston, I said that we\nought to take into consideration the circumstances under which the\nAnarchists were reared; that we ought to know that every man is\nnecessarily produced; that man is what he is, not by accident, but\nnecessity; that society raises its own criminals--that it plows\nthe soil and cultivates and harvests the crop. And it was telegraphed\nthat I had defended anarchy. Nothing was ever further from my\nmind. There is no place, as I said before, for anarchy in the\nUnited States. In Russia it is another question; in Germany another\nquestion. Every country that is governed by the one man, or governed\nby the few, is the victim of anarchy. That _is_ anarchy. That is\nthe worst possible form of socialism. The definition of socialism\ngiven by its bitterest enemy is, that idlers wish to live on the\nlabor and on the money of others. Is not this definition--a\ndefinition given in hatred--a perfect definition of every monarchy\nand of nearly every government in the world? That is to say: The\nidle few live on the labor and the money of others.\n\n_Question_. Will the Supreme Court take cognizance of this case\nand prevent the execution of the judgment?\n\n_Answer_. Of course it is impossible for me to say. At the same\ntime, judging from the action of Justice Miller in the case of _The\nPeople vs. Maxwell_, it seems probable that the Supreme Court may\ninterfere, but I have not examined the question sufficiently to\nform an opinion. My feeling about the whole matter is this: That\nit will not tend to answer the ideas advanced by these men, to hang\nthem. Their execution will excite sympathy among thousands and\nthousands of people who have never examined and knew nothing of\nthe theories advanced by the Anarchists, or the Socialists, or\nother agitators. In my judgment, supposing the men to be guilty,\nit is far better to imprison them. Less harm will be done the\ncause of free government. We are not on the edge of any revolution.\nNo other government is as firmly fixed as ours. No other government\nhas such a broad and splendid foundation. We have nothing to fear.\nCourage and safety can afford to be generous--can afford to act\nwithout haste and without the feeling of revenge. So, for my part,\nI hope that the sentence may be commuted, and that these men, if\nfound guilty at last, may be imprisoned. This course is, in my\njudgment, the safest to pursue. It may be that I am led to this\nconclusion, because of my belief that every man does as he must.\nThis belief makes me charitable toward all the world. This belief\nmakes me doubt the wisdom of revenge. This belief, so far as I am\nconcerned, blots from our language the word \"punishment.\" Society\nhas a right to protect itself, and it is the duty of society to\nreform, in so far as it may be possible, any member who has committed\nwhat is called a crime. Where the criminal cannot be reformed,\nand the safety of society can be secured by his imprisonment, there\nis no possible excuse for destroying his life. After these six or\nseven men have been, in accordance with the forms of law, strangled\nto death, there will be a few pieces of clay, and about them will\ngather a few friends, a few admirers--and these pieces will be\nburied, and over the grave will be erected a monument, and those\nwho were executed as criminals will be regarded by thousands as\nsaints. It is far better for society to have a little mercy. The\neffect upon the community will be good. If these men are imprisoned,\npeople will examine their teachings without prejudice. If they\nare executed, seen through the tears of pity, their virtues, their\nsufferings, their heroism, will be exaggerated; others may emulate\ntheir deeds, and the gulf between the rich and the poor will be\nwidened--a gulf that may not close until it has devoured the noblest\nand the best.\n\n--_The Mail and Express_, New York, November 3, 1887.\n\n\nTHE STAGE AND THE PULPIT.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the Methodist minister at Nashville,\nTenn., who, from his pulpit, denounced the theatrical profession,\nwithout exception, as vicious, and of the congregation which passed\nresolutions condemning Miss Emma Abbott for rising in church and\ncontradicting him, and of the Methodist bishop who likened her to\na \"painted courtesan,\" and invoked the aid of the law \"for the\nprotection of public worship\" against \"strolling players\"?\n\n_Answer_. The Methodist minister of whom you speak, without doubt\nuttered his real sentiments. The church has always regarded the\nstage as a rival, and all its utterances have been as malicious as\nuntrue. It has always felt that the money given to the stage was\nin some way taken from the pulpit. It is on this principle that\nthe pulpit wishes everything, except the church, shut up on Sunday.\nIt knows that it cannot stand free and open competition.\n\nAll well-educated ministers know that the Bible suffers by a\ncomparison with Shakespeare. They know that there is nothing within\nthe lids of what they call \"the sacred book\" that can for one moment\nstand side by side with \"Lear\" or \"Hamlet\" or \"Julius Caesar\" or\n\"Antony and Cleopatra\" or with any other play written by the immortal\nman. They know what a poor figure the Davids and the Abrahams and\nthe Jeremiahs and the Lots, the Jonahs, the Jobs and the Noahs cut\nwhen on the stage with the great characters of Shakespeare. For\nthese reasons, among others, the pulpit is malicious and hateful\nwhen it thinks of the glories of the stage. What minister is there\nnow living who could command the prices commanded by Edwin Booth\nor Joseph Jefferson; and what two clergymen, by making a combination,\ncould contend successfully with Robson and Crane? How many clergymen\nwould it take to command, at regular prices, the audiences that\nattend the presentation of Wagner's operas?\n\nIt is very easy to see why the pulpit attacks the stage. Nothing\ncould have been in more wretched taste than for the minister to\ncondemn Miss Emma Abbott for rising in church and defending not\nonly herself, but other good women who are doing honest work for\nan honest living. Of course, no minister wishes to be answered;\nno minister wishes to have anyone in the congregation call for the\nproof. A few questions would break up all the theology in the\nworld. Ministers can succeed only when congregations keep silent.\nWhen superstition succeeds, doubt must be dumb.\n\nThe Methodist bishop who attacked Miss Abbott simply repeated the\nlanguage of several centuries ago. In the laws of England actors\nwere described as \"sturdy vagrants,\" and this bishop calls them\n\"strolling players.\" If we only had some strolling preachers like\nGarrick, like Edwin Forrest, or Booth or Barrett, or some crusade\nsisters like Mrs. Siddons, Madam Ristori, Charlotte Cushman, or\nMadam Modjeska, how fortunate the church would be!\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of the relative merits of the\npulpit and the stage, preachers and actors?\n\n_Answer_. We must remember that the stage presents an ideal life.\nIt is a world controlled by the imagination--a world in which the\njustice delayed in real life may be done, and in which that may\nhappen which, according to the highest ideal, should happen. It\nis a world, for the most part, in which evil does not succeed, in\nwhich the vicious are foiled, in which the right, the honest, the\nsincere, and the good prevail. It cultivates the imagination, and\nin this respect is far better than the pulpit. The mission of the\npulpit is to narrow and shrivel the human mind. The pulpit denounces\nthe freedom of thought and of expression; but on the stage the mind\nis free, and for thousands of years the poor, the oppressed, the\nenslaved, have been permitted to witness plays wherein the slave\nwas freed, wherein the oppressed became the victor, and where the\ndowntrodden rose supreme.\n\nAnd there is another thing. The stage has always laughed at the\nspirit of caste. The low-born lass has loved the prince. All\nhuman distinctions in this ideal world have for the moment vanished,\nwhile honesty and love have triumphed. The stage lightens the\ncares of life. The pulpit increases the tears and groans of man.\nThere is this difference: The pretence of honesty and the honesty\nof pretence.\n\n_Question_. How do you view the Episcopalian scheme of building\na six-million-dollar untaxed cathedral in this city for the purpose\nof \"uniting the sects,\" and, when that is accomplished, \"unifying\nthe world in the love of Christ,\" and thereby abolishing misery?\n\n_Answer_. I regard the building of an Episcopal cathedral simply\nas a piece of religious folly. The world will never be converted\nby Christian palaces and temples. Every dollar used in its\nconstruction will be wasted. It will have no tendency to unite\nthe various sects; on the contrary, it will excite the envy and\njealousy of every other sect. It will widen the gulf between the\nEpiscopalian and the Methodist, between the Episcopalian and the\nPresbyterian, and this hatred will continue until the other sects\nbuild a cathedral just a little larger, and then the envy and the\nhatred will be on the other side.\n\nReligion will never unify the world, and never will give peace to\nmankind. There has been more war in the last eighteen hundred\nyears than during any similar period within historic times. War\nwill be abolished, if it ever is abolished, not by religion, but\nby intelligence. It will be abolished when the poor people of\nGermany, of France, of Spain, of England, and other countries find\nthat they have no interest in war. When those who pay, and those\nwho do the fighting, find that they are simply destroying their\nown interests, wars will cease.\n\nThere ought to be a national court to decide national difficulties.\nWe consider a community civilized when the individuals of that\ncommunity submit their differences to a legal tribunal; but there\nbeing no national court, nations now sustain, as to each other,\nthe relation of savages--that is to say, each one must defend its\nrights by brute force. The establishment of a national court\ncivilizes nations, and tends to do away with war.\n\nChristianity caused so much war, so much bloodshed, that Christians\nwere forced to interpolate a passage to account for their history,\nand the interpolated passage is, \"I came not to bring peace, but\na sword.\" Suppose that all the money wasted in cathedrals in the\nMiddle Ages had been used for the construction of schoolhouses,\nacademies, and universities, how much better the world would have\nbeen! Suppose that instead of supporting hundreds of thousands of\nidle priests, the money had been given to men of science, for the\npurpose of finding out something of benefit to the human race here\nin this world.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of \"Christian charity\" and the\n\"fatherhood of God\" as an economic polity for abolishing poverty\nand misery?\n\n_Answer_. Of course, the world is not to be civilized and clothed\nand fed through charity. Ordinary charity creates more want than\nit alleviates. The greatest possible charity is the greatest\npossible justice. When proper wages are paid, when every one is\nas willing to give what a thing is worth as he is now willing to\nget it for less, the world will be fed and clothed.\n\nI believe in helping people to help themselves. I believe that\ncorporations, and successful men, and superior men intellectually,\nshould do all within their power to keep from robbing their fellow-\nmen. The superior man should protect the inferior. The powerful\nshould be the shield of the weak. To-day it is, for the most part,\nexactly the other way. The failures among men become the food of\nsuccess.\n\nThe world is to grow better and better through intelligence, through\na development of the brain, through taking advantage of the forces\nof nature, through science, through chemistry, and through the\narts. Religion can do nothing except to sow the seeds of discord\nbetween men and nations. Commerce, manufactures, and the arts tend\nto peace and the well-being of the world. What is known as religion\n--that is to say, a system by which this world is wasted in\npreparation for another--a system in which the duties of men are\ngreater to God than to his fellow-men--a system that denies the\nliberty of thought and expression--tends only to discord and\nretrogression. Of course, I know that religious people cling to\nthe Bible on account of the good that is in it, and in spite of\nthe bad, and I know that Freethinkers throw away the Bible on\naccount of the bad that is in it, in spite of the good. I hope\nthe time will come when that book will be treated like other books,\nand will be judged upon its merits, apart from the fiction of\ninspiration. The church has no right to speak of charity, because\nit is an object of charity itself. It gives nothing; all it can\ndo is to receive. At best, it is only a respectable beggar. I\nnever care to hear one who receives alms pay a tribute to charity.\nThe one who gives alms should pay this tribute. The amount of\nmoney expended upon churches and priests and all the paraphernalia\nof superstition, is more than enough to drive the wolves from the\ndoors of the world.\n\n_Question_. Have you noticed the progress Catholics are making in\nthe Northwest, discontinuing public schools, and forcing people to\nsend their children to the parochial schools; also, at Pittsburg,\nPa., a Roman Catholic priest has been elected principal of a public\nschool, and he has appointed nuns as assistant teachers?\n\n_Answer_. Sectarian schools ought not to be supported by public\ntaxation. It is the very essence of religious tyranny to compel\na Methodist to support a Catholic school, or to compel a Catholic\nto support a Baptist academy. Nothing should be taught in the\npublic schools that the teachers do not know. Nothing should be\ntaught about any religion, and nothing should be taught that can,\nin any way, be called sectarian. The sciences are not religion.\nThere is no such thing as Methodist mathematics, or Baptist botany.\nIn other words, no religion has anything to do with facts. The\nfacts are all secular; the sciences are all of this world. If\nCatholics wish to establish their own schools for the purpose of\npreserving their ignorance, they have the right to do so; so has\nany other denomination. But in this country the State has no right\nto teach any form of religion whatever. Persons of all religions\nhave the right to advocate and defend any religion in which they\nbelieve, or they have the right to denounce all religions. If the\nCatholics establish parochial schools, let them support such schools;\nand if they do, they will simply lessen or shorten the longevity\nof that particular superstition. It has often been said that\nnothing will repeal a bad law as quickly as its enforcement. So,\nin my judgment, nothing will destroy any church as certainly, and\nas rapidly, as for the members of that church to live squarely up\nto the creed. The church is indebted to its hypocrisy to-day for\nits life. No orthodox church in the United States dare meet for\nthe purpose of revising the creed. They know that the whole thing\nwould fall to pieces.\n\nNothing could be more absurd than for a Roman Catholic priest to\nteach a public school, assisted by nuns. The Catholic Church is\nthe enemy of human progress; it teaches every man to throw away\nhis reason, to deny his observation and experience.\n\n_Question_. Your opinions have frequently been quoted with regard\nto the Anarchists--with regard to their trial and execution. Have\nyou any objection to stating your real opinion in regard to the\nmatter?\n\n_Answer_. Not in the least. I am perfectly willing that all\ncivilized people should know my opinions on any question in which\nothers than myself can have any interest.\n\nI was anxious, in the first place, that the defendants should have\na fair and impartial trial. The worst form of anarchy is when a\njudge violates his conscience and bows to a popular demand. A\ncourt should care nothing for public opinion. An honest judge\ndecides the law, not as it ought to be, but as it is, and the state\nof the public mind throws no light upon the question of what the\nlaw then is.\n\nI thought that some of the rulings on the trial of the Anarchists\nwere contrary to law. I think so still. I have read the opinion\nof the Supreme Court of Illinois, and while the conclusion reached\nby that tribunal is the law of that case, I was not satisfied with\nthe reasons given, and do not regard the opinion as good law.\nThere is no place for an Anarchist in the United States. There is\nno excuse for any resort to force; and it is impossible to use\nlanguage too harsh or too bitter in denouncing the spirit of anarchy\nin this country. But, no matter how bad a man is, he has the\nright to be fairly tried; and if he cannot be fairly tried, then\nthere is anarchy on the bench. So I was opposed to the execution\nof these men. I thought it would have been far better to commute\nthe punishment to imprisonment, and I said so; and I not only said\nso, but I wrote a letter to Governor Oglesby, in which I urged the\ncommutation of the death sentence. In my judgment, a great mistake\nwas made. I am on the side of mercy, and if I ever make mistakes,\nI hope they will all be made on that side. I have not the slightest\nsympathy with the feeling of revenge. Neither have I ever admitted,\nand I never shall, that every citizen has not the right to give\nhis opinion on all that may be done by any servant of the people,\nby any judge, or by any court, by any officer--however small or\nhowever great. Each man in the United States is a sovereign, and\na king can freely speak his mind.\n\nWords were put in my mouth that I never uttered with regard to the\nAnarchists. I never said that they were saints, or that they would\nbe martyrs. What I said was that they would be regarded as saints\nand martyrs by many people if they were executed, and that has\nhappened which I said would happen. I am, so far as I know, on\nthe side of the right. I wish, above all things, for the preservation\nof human liberty. This Government is the best, and we should not\nlose confidence in liberty. Property is of very little value in\ncomparison with freedom. A civilization that rests on slavery is\nutterly worthless. I do not believe in sacrificing all there is\nof value in the human heart, or in the human brain, for the\npreservation of what is called property, or rather, on account of\nthe fear that what is called \"property\" may perish. Property is\nin no danger while man is free. It is the freedom of man that\ngives value to property. It is the happiness of the human race\nthat creates what we call value. If we preserve liberty, the spirit\nof progress, the conditions of development, property will take care\nof itself.\n\n_Question_. The Christian press during the past few months has\nbeen very solicitous as to your health, and has reported you weak\nand feeble physically, and not only so, but asserts that there is\na growing disposition on your part to lay down your arms, and even\nto join the church.\n\n_Answer_. I do not think the Christian press has been very solicitous\nabout my _health_. Neither do I think that my health will ever\nadd to theirs. The fact is, I am exceedingly well, and my throat\nis better than it has been for many years. Any one who imagines\nthat I am disposed to lay down my arms can read by Reply to Dr.\nField in the November number of the _North American Review_. I\nsee no particular difference in myself, except this; that my hatred\nof superstition becomes a little more and more intense; on the\nother hand, I see more clearly, that all the superstitions were\nnaturally produced, and I am now satisfied that every man does as\nhe must, including priests and editors of religious papers.\n\nThis gives me hope for the future. We find that certain soil, with\na certain amount of moisture and heat, produces good corn, and we\nfind when the soil is poor, or when the ground is too wet, or too\ndry, that no amount of care can, by any possibility, produce good\ncorn. In other words, we find that the fruit, that is to say, the\nresult, whatever it may be, depends absolutely upon the conditions.\nThis being so, we will in time find out the conditions that produce\ngood, intelligent, honest men. This is the hope for the future.\nWe shall know better than to rely on what is called reformation,\nor regeneration, or a resolution born of ignorant excitement. We\nshall rely, then, on the eternal foundation--the fact in nature--\nthat like causes produce like results, and that good conditions\nwill produce good people.\n\n_Question_. Every now and then some one challenges you to a\ndiscussion, and nearly every one who delivers lectures, or speeches,\nattacking you, or your views, says that you are afraid publicly to\ndebate these questions. Why do you not meet these men, and why do\nyou not answer these attacks?\n\n_Answer_. In the first place, it would be a physical impossibility\nto reply to all the attacks that have been made--to all the \"answers.\"\nI receive these attacks, and these answers, and these lectures\nalmost every day. Hundreds of them are delivered every year. A\ngreat many are put in pamphlet form, and, of course, copies are\nreceived by me. Some of them I read, at least I look them over,\nand I have never yet received one worthy of the slightest notice,\nnever one in which the writer showed the slightest appreciation of\nthe questions under discussion. All these pamphlets are about the\nsame, and they could, for the matter, have all been produced by\none person. They are impudent, shallow, abusive, illogical, and\nin most respects, ignorant. So far as the lecturers are concerned,\nI know of no one who has yet said anything that challenges a reply.\nI do not think a single paragraph has been produced by any of the\ngentlemen who have replied to me in public, that is now remembered\nby reason of its logic or beauty. I do not feel called upon to\nanswer any argument that does not at least appear to be of value.\nWhenever any article appears worthy of an answer, written in a kind\nand candid spirit, it gives me pleasure to reply.\n\nI should like to meet some one who speaks by authority, some one\nwho really understands his creed, but I cannot afford to waste time\non little priests or obscure parsons or ignorant laymen.\n\n--_The Truth Seeker_, New York, January 14, 1888.\n\n\nROSCOE CONKLING.\n\n_Question_. What is Mr. Conkling's place in the political history\nof the United States?\n\n_Answer_. Upon the great questions Mr. Conkling has been right.\nDuring the war he was always strong and clear, unwavering and\ndecided. His position was always known. He was right on\nreconstruction, on civil rights, on the currency, and, so far as\nI know, on all important questions. He will be remembered as an\nhonest, fearless man. He was admired for his known integrity. He\nwas never even suspected of being swayed by an improper consideration.\nHe was immeasurably above purchase.\n\nHis popularity rested upon his absolute integrity. He was not\nadapted for a leader, because he would yield nothing. He had no\ncompromise in his nature. He went his own road and he would not\nturn aside for the sake of company. His individuality was too\nmarked and his will too imperious to become a leader in a republic.\nThere is a great deal of individuality in this country, and a leader\nmust not appear to govern and must not demand obedience. In the\nSenate he was a leader. He settled with no one.\n\n_Question_. What essentially American idea does he stand for?\n\n_Answer_. It is a favorite saying in this country that the people\nare sovereigns. Mr. Conkling felt this to be true, and he exercised\nwhat he believed to be his rights. He insisted upon the utmost\nfreedom for himself. He settled with no one but himself. He stands\nfor individuality--for the freedom of the citizen, the independence\nof the man. No lord, no duke, no king was ever prouder of his\ntitle or his place than Mr. Conkling was of his position and his\npower. He was thoroughly American in every drop of his blood.\n\n_Question_. What have you to say about his having died with sealed\nlips?\n\n_Answer_. Mr. Conkling was too proud to show wounds. He did not\ntell his sorrows to the public. It seemed sufficient to him to\nknow the facts himself. He seemed to have great confidence in\ntime, and he had the patience to wait. Of course he could have\ntold many things that would have shed light on many important\nevents, but for my part I think he acted in the noblest way.\n\nHe was a striking and original figure in our politics. He stood\nalone. I know of no one like him. He will be remembered as a\nfearless and incorruptible statesman, a great lawyer, a magnificent\nspeaker, and an honest man.\n\n--_The Herald_, New York, April 19, 1888.\n\n\nTHE CHURCH AND THE STAGE.\n\n_Question_. I have come to talk with you a little about the drama.\nHave you any decided opinions on that subject?\n\n_Answer_. Nothing is more natural than imitation. The little\nchild with her doll, telling it stories, putting words in its mouth,\nattributing to it the feelings of happiness and misery, is the\nsimple tendency toward the drama. Little children always have\nplays, they imitate their parents, they put on the clothes of their\nelders, they have imaginary parties, carry on conversation with\nimaginary persons, have little dishes filled with imaginary food,\npour tea and coffee out of invisible pots, receive callers, and\nrepeat what they have heard their mothers say. This is simply the\nnatural drama, an exercise of the imagination which always has been\nand which, probably, always will be, a source of great pleasure.\nIn the early days of the world nothing was more natural than for\nthe people to re-enact the history of their country--to represent\nthe great heroes, the great battles, and the most exciting scenes\nthe history of which has been preserved by legend. I believe this\ntendency to re-enact, to bring before the eyes the great, the\ncurious, and pathetic events of history, has been universal. All\ncivilized nations have delighted in the theatre, and the greatest\nminds in many countries have been devoted to the drama, and, without\ndoubt, the greatest man about whom we know anything devoted his\nlife to the production of plays.\n\n_Question_. I would like to ask you why, in your opinion as a\nstudent of history, has the Protestant Church always been so bitterly\nopposed to the theatre?\n\n_Answer_. I believe the early Christians expected the destruction\nof the world. They had no idea of remaining here, in the then\ncondition of things, but for a few days. They expected that Christ\nwould come again, that the world would be purified by fire, that\nall the unbelievers would be burned up and that the earth would\nbecome a fit habitation for the followers of the Saviour.\nProtestantism became as ascetic as the early Christians. It is\nhard to conceive of anybody believing in the \"Five Points\" of John\nCalvin going to any place of amusement. The creed of Protestantism\nmade life infinitely sad and made man infinitely responsible.\nAccording to this creed every man was liable at any moment to be\nsummoned to eternal pain; the most devout Christian was not absolutely\nsure of salvation. This life was a probationary one. Everybody\nwas considered as waiting on the dock of time, sitting on his trunk,\nexpecting the ship that was to bear him to an eternity of good or\nevil--probably evil. They were in no state of mind to enjoy\nburlesque or comedy, and, so far as tragedy was concerned, their\nown lives and their own creeds were tragic beyond anything that\ncould by any possibility happen in this world. A broken heart was\nnothing to be compared with a damned soul; the afflictions of a\nfew years, with the flames of eternity. This, to say the least of\nit, accounts, in part, for the hatred that Protestantism always\nbore toward the stage. Of course, the churches have always regarded\nthe theatre as a rival and have begrudged the money used to support\nthe stage. You know that Macaulay said the Puritans objected to\nbear-baiting, not because they pitied the bears, but because they\nhated to see the people enjoy themselves. There is in this at\nleast a little truth. Orthodox religion has always been and always\nwill be the enemy of happiness. This world is not the place for\nenjoyment. This is the place to suffer. This is the place to\npractice self-denial, to wear crowns of thorns; the other world is\nthe place for joy, provided you are fortunate enough to travel the\nnarrow, grass-grown path. Of course, wicked people can be happy\nhere. People who care nothing for the good of others, who live\nselfish and horrible lives, are supposed by Christians to enjoy\nthemselves; consequently, they will be punished in another world.\nBut whoever carried the cross of decency, and whoever denied himself\nto that degree that he neither stole nor forged nor murdered, will\nbe paid for this self-denial in another world. And whoever said\nthat he preferred a prayer-meeting with five or six queer old men\nand two or three very aged women, with one or two candles, and who\nsolemnly affirmed that he enjoyed that far more than he could a\nplay of Shakespeare, was expected with much reason, I think, to be\nrewarded in another world.\n\n_Question_. Do you think that church people were justified in\ntheir opposition to the drama in the days when Congreve, Wycherley\nand Ben Jonson were the popular favorites?\n\n_Answer_. In that time there was a great deal of vulgarity in many\nof the plays. Many things were said on the stage that the people\nof this age would not care to hear, and there was not very often\nenough wit in the saying to redeem it. My principal objection to\nCongreve, Wycherley and most of their contemporaries is that the\nplays were exceedingly poor and had not much in them of real,\nsterling value. The Puritans, however, did not object on account\nof the vulgarity; that was not the honest objection. No play was\never put upon the English stage more vulgar then the \"Table Talk\"\nof Martin Luther, and many sermons preached in that day were almost\nunrivaled for vulgarity. The worst passages in the Old Testament\nwere quoted with a kind of unction that showed a love for the\nvulgar. And, in my judgment, the worst plays were as good as the\nsermons, and the theatre of that time was better adapted to civilize\nmankind, to soften the human heart, and to make better men and\nbetter women, than the pulpit of that day. The actors, in my\njudgment, were better people than the preachers. They had in them\nmore humanity, more real goodness and more appreciation of beauty,\nof tenderness, of generosity and of heroism. Probably no religion\nwas ever more thoroughly hateful than Puritanism. But all religionists\nwho believe in an eternity of pain would naturally be opposed to\neverything that makes this life better; and, as a matter of fact,\northodox churches have been the enemies of painting, of sculpture,\nof music and the drama.\n\n_Question_. What, in your estimation, is the value of the drama\nas a factor in our social life at the present time?\n\n_Answer_. I believe that the plays of Shakespeare are the most\nvaluable things in the possession of the human race. No man can\nread and understand Shakespeare without being an intellectually\ndeveloped man. If Shakespeare could be as widely circulated as\nthe Bible--if all the Bible societies would break the plates they\nnow have and print Shakespeare, and put Shakespeare in all the\nlanguages of the world, nothing would so raise the intellectual\nstandard of mankind. Think of the different influence on men\nbetween reading Deuteronomy and \"Hamlet\" and \"King Lear\"; between\nstudying Numbers and the \"Midsummer Night's Dream\"; between pondering\nover the murderous crimes and assassinations in Judges, and studying\n\"The Tempest\" or \"As You Like It.\" Man advances as he develops\nintellectually. The church teaches obedience. The man who reads\nShakespeare has his intellectual horizon enlarged. He begins to\nthink for himself, and he enjoys living in a new world. The\ncharacters of Shakespeare become his acquaintances. He admires\nthe heroes, the philosophers; he laughs with the clowns, and he\nalmost adores the beautiful women, the pure, loving, and heroic\nwomen born of Shakespeare's heart and brain. The stage has amused\nand instructed the world. It had added to the happiness of mankind.\nIt has kept alive all arts. It is in partnership with all there\nis of beauty, of poetry, and expression. It goes hand in hand with\nmusic, with painting, with sculpture, with oratory, with philosophy,\nand history. The stage has humor. It abhors stupidity. It despises\nhypocrisy. It holds up to laughter the peculiarities, the\nidiosyncrasies, and the little insanities of mankind. It thrusts\nthe spear of ridicule through the shield of pretence. It laughs\nat the lugubrious and it has ever taught and will, in all probability,\nforever teach, that Man is more than a title, and that human love\nlaughs at all barriers, at all the prejudices of society and caste\nthat tend to keep apart two loving hearts.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of the progress of the drama in\neducating the artistic sense of the community as compared with the\nprogress of the church as an educator of the moral sentiment?\n\n_Answer_. Of course, the stage is not all good, nor is--and I say\nthis with becoming modesty--the pulpit all bad. There have been\nbad actors and there have been good preachers. There has been no\nimprovement in plays since Shakespeare wrote. There has been great\nimprovement in theatres, and the tendency seems to me be toward\nhigher artistic excellence in the presentation of plays. As we\nbecome slowly civilized we will constantly demand more artistic\nexcellence. There will always be a class satisfied with the lowest\nform of dramatic presentation, with coarse wit, with stupid but\napparent jokes, and there will always be a class satisfied with\nalmost anything; but the class demanding the highest, the best,\nwill constantly increase in numbers, and the other classes will,\nin all probability, correspondingly decrease. The church has ceased\nto be an educator. In an artistic direction it never did anything\nexcept in architecture, and that ceased long ago. The followers\nof to-day are poor copyists. The church has been compelled to be\na friend of, or rather to call in the assistance of, music. As a\nmoral teacher, the church always has been and always will be a\nfailure. The pulpit, to use the language of Frederick Douglass,\nhas always \"echoed the cry of the street.\" Take our own history.\nThe church was the friend of slavery. That institution was defended\nin nearly every pulpit. The Bible was the auction-block on which\nthe slave-mother stood while her child was sold from her arms.\nThe church, for hundreds of years, was the friend and defender of\nthe slave-trade. I know of no crime that has not been defended by\nthe church, in one form or another. The church is not a pioneer;\nit accepts a new truth, last of all, and only when denial has become\nuseless. The church preaches the doctrine of forgiveness. This\ndoctrine sells crime on credit. The idea that there is a God who\nrewards and punishes, and who can reward, if he so wishes, the\nmeanest and vilest of the human race, so that he will be eternally\nhappy, and can punish the best of the human race, so that he will\nbe eternally miserable, is subversive of all morality. Happiness\nought to be the result of good actions. Happiness ought to spring\nfrom the seed a man sows himself. It ought not to be a reward, it\nought to be a consequence, and there ought to be no idea that there\nis any being who can step between action and consequence. To preach\nthat a man can abuse his wife and children, rob his neighbors,\nslander his fellow-citizens, and yet, a moment or two before he\ndies, by repentance become a glorified angel is, in my judgment,\nimmoral. And to preach that a man can be a good man, kind to his\nwife and children, an honest man, paying his debts, and yet, for\nthe lack of a certain belief, the moment after he is dead, be sent\nto an eternal prison, is also immoral. So that, according to my\nopinion, while the church teaches men many good things, it also\nteaches doctrines subversive of morality. If there were not in\nthe whole world a church, the morality of man, in my judgment, would\nbe the gainer.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the treatment of the actor by\nsociety in his social relations?\n\n_Answer_. For a good many years the basis of society has been the\ndollar. Only a few years ago all literary men were ostracized\nbecause they had no money; neither did they have a reading public.\nIf any man produced a book he had to find a patron--some titled\ndonkey, some lauded lubber, in whose honor he could print a few\nwell-turned lies on the fly-leaf. If you wish to know the degradation\nof literature, read the dedication written by Lord Bacon to James\nI., in which he puts him beyond all kings, living and dead--beyond\nCaesar and Marcus Aurelius. In those days the literary man was a\nservant, a hack. He lived in Grub Street. He was only one degree\nabove the sturdy vagrant and the escaped convict. Why was this?\nHe had no money and he lived in an age when money was the fountain\nof respectability. Let me give you another instance: Mozart,\nwhose brain was a fountain of melody, was forced to eat at table\nwith coachmen, with footmen and scullions. He was simply a servant\nwho was commanded to make music for a pudding-headed bishop. The\nsame was true of the great painters, and of almost all other men\nwho rendered the world beautiful by art, and who enriched the\nlanguages of mankind. The basis of respectability was the dollar.\n\nNow that the literary man has an intelligent public he cares nothing\nfor the ignorant patron. The literary man makes money. The world\nis becoming civilized and the literary man stands high. In England,\nhowever, if Charles Darwin had been invited to dinner, and there\nhad been present some sprig of nobility, some titled vessel holding\nthe germs of hereditary disease, Darwin would have been compelled\nto occupy a place beneath him. But I have hopes even for England.\nThe same is true of the artist. The man who can now paint a picture\nby which he receives from five thousand to fifty thousand dollars,\nis necessarily respectable. The actor who may realize from one to\ntwo thousand dollars a night, or even more, is welcomed in the\nstupidest and richest society. So with the singers and with all\nothers who instruct and amuse mankind. Many people imagine that\nhe who amuses them must be lower than they. This, however, is\nhardly possible. I believe in the aristocracy of the brain and\nheart; in the aristocracy of intelligence and goodness, and not\nonly appreciate but admire the great actor, the great painter, the\ngreat sculptor, the marvelous singer. In other words, I admire\nall people who tend to make this life richer, who give an additional\nthought to this poor world.\n\n_Question_. Do you think this liberal movement, favoring the better\nclass of plays, inaugurated by the Rev. Dr. Abbott, will tend to\nsoften the sentiment of the orthodox churches against the stage?\n\n_Answer_. I have not read what Dr. Abbott has written on this\nsubject. From your statement of his position, I think he entertains\nquite a sensible view, and, when we take into consideration that\nhe is a minister, a miraculously sensible view. It is not the\nbusiness of the dramatist, the actor, the painter or the sculptor\nto teach what the church calls morality. The dramatist and the\nactor ought to be truthful, ought to be natural--that is to say,\ntruthfully and naturally artistic. He should present pictures of\nlife properly chosen, artistically constructed; an exhibition of\nemotions truthfully done, artistically done. If vice is presented\nnaturally, no one will fall in love with vice. If the better\nqualities of the human heart are presented naturally, no one can\nfail to fall in love with them. But they need not be presented\nfor that purpose. The object of the artist is to present truthfully\nand artistically. He is not a Sunday school teacher. He is not\nto have the moral effect eternally in his mind. It is enough for\nhim to be truly artistic. Because, as I have said, a great many\ntimes, the greatest good is done by indirection. For instance, a\nman lives a good, noble, honest and lofty life. The value of that\nlife would be destroyed if he kept calling attention to it--if he\nsaid to all who met him, \"Look at me!\" he would become intolerable.\nThe truly artistic speaks of perfection; that is to say, of harmony,\nnot only of conduct, but of harmony and proportion in everything.\nThe pulpit is always afraid of the passions, and really imagines\nthat it has some influence on men and women, keeping them in the\npath of virtue. No greater mistake was ever made. Eternally\ntalking and harping on that one subject, in my judgment, does harm.\nForever keeping it in the mind by reading passages from the Bible,\nby talking about the \"corruption of the human heart,\" of the \"power\nof temptation,\" of the scarcity of virtue, of the plentifulness of\nvice--all these platitudes tend to produce exactly what they are\ndirected against.\n\n_Question_. I fear, Colonel, that I have surprised you into agreeing\nwith a clergyman. The following are the points made by the Rev.\nDr. Abbott in his editorial on the theatre, and it seems to me that\nyou and he think very much alike--on that subject. The points are\nthese:\n\n1. It is not the function of the drama to teach moral lessons.\n\n2. A moral lesson neither makes nor mars either a drama or a novel.\n\n3. The moral quality of a play does not depend upon the result.\n\n4. The real function of the drama is like that of the novel--not\nto amuse, not to excite; but to portray life, and so minister to\nit. And as virtue and vice, goodness and evil, are the great\nfundamental facts of life, they must, in either serious story or\nserious play, be portrayed. If they are so portrayed that the vice\nis alluring and the virtue repugnant, the play or story is immoral;\nif so portrayed that the vice is repellant and the virtue alluring,\nthey play or story is moral.\n\n5. The church has no occasion to ask the theatre to preach; though\nif it does preach we have a right to demand that its ethical\ndoctrines be pure and high. But we have a right to demand that in\nits pictures of life it so portrays vice as to make it abhorrent,\nand so portrays virtue as to make it attractive.\n\n_Answer_. I agree in most of what you have read, though I must\nconfess that to find a minister agreeing with me, or to find myself\nagreeing with a minister, makes me a little uncertain. All art,\nin my judgment, is for the sake of expression--equally true of the\ndrama as of painting and sculpture. No poem touches the human\nheart unless it touches the universal. It must, at some point,\nmove in unison with the great ebb and flow of things. The same is\ntrue of the play, of a piece of music or a statue. I think that\nall real artists, in all departments, touch the universal and when\nthey do the result is good; but the result need not have been a\nconsideration. There is an old story that at first there was a\ntemple erected upon the earth by God himself; that afterward this\ntemple was shivered into countless pieces and distributed over the\nwhole earth, and that all the rubies and diamonds and precious\nstones since found are parts of that temple. Now, if we could\nconceive of a building, or of anything involving all Art, and that\nit had been scattered abroad, then I would say that whoever find\nand portrays truthfully a thought, an emotion, a truth, has found\nand restored one of the jewels.\n\n--_Dramatic Mirror_, New York, April 21, 1888.\n\n\nPROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.\n\n_Question_. Do you take much interest in politics, Colonel\nIngersoll?\n\n_Answer_. I take as much interest in politics as a Republican\nought who expects nothing and who wants nothing for himself. I\nwant to see this country again controlled by the Republican party.\nThe present administration has not, in my judgment, the training\nand the political intelligence to decide upon the great economic\nand financial questions. There are a great many politicians and\nbut few statesmen. Here, where men have to be elected every two\nor six years, there is hardly time for the officials to study\nstatesmanship--they are busy laying pipes and fixing fences for\nthe next election. Each one feels much like a monkey at a fair,\non the top of a greased pole, and puts in the most of his time\ndodging stones and keeping from falling. I want to see the party\nin power best qualified, best equipped, to administer the\nGovernment.\n\n_Question_. What do you think will be the particular issue of the\ncoming campaign?\n\n_Answer_. That question has already been answered. The great\nquestion will be the tariff. Mr. Cleveland imagines that the\nsurplus can be gotten rid of by a reduction of the tariff. If the\nreduction is so great as to increase the demand for foreign articles,\nthe probability is that the surplus will be increased. The surplus\ncan surely be done away with by either of two methods; first make\nthe tariff prohibitory; second, have no tariff. But if the tariff\nis just at that point where the foreign goods could pay it and yet\nundersell the American so as to stop home manufactures, then the\nsurplus would increase.\n\nAs a rule we can depend on American competition to keep prices at\na reasonable rate. When that fails we have at all times the\ngoverning power in our hands--that is to say, we can reduce the\ntariff. In other words, the tariff is not for the benefit of the\nmanufacturer--the protection is not for the mechanic or the capitalist\n--it is for the whole country. I do not believe in protecting silk\nsimply to help the town of Paterson, but I am for the protection\nof the manufacture, because, in my judgment, it helps the entire\ncountry, and because I know that it has given us a far better\narticle of silk at a far lower price than we obtained before the\nestablishment of those factories.\n\nI believe in the protection of every industry that needs it, to\nthe end that we may make use of every kind of brain and find use\nfor all human capacities. In this way we will produce greater and\nbetter people. A nation of agriculturalists or a nation of mechanics\nwould become narrow and small, but where everything is done, then\nthe brain is cultivated on every side, from artisan to artist.\nThat is to say, we become thinkers as well as workers; muscle and\nmind form a partnership.\n\nI don't believe that England is particularly interested in the\nwelfare of the United States. It never seemed probable to me that\nmen like Godwin Smith sat up nights fearing that we in some way\nmight injure ourselves. To use a phrase that will be understood\nby theologians at least, we ought to \"copper\" all English advice.\n\nThe free traders say that there ought to be no obstructions placed\nby governments between buyers and sellers. If we want to make the\ntrade, of course there should be no obstruction, but if we prefer\nthat Americans should trade with Americans--that Americans should\nmake what Americans want--then, so far as trading with foreigners\nis concerned, there ought to be an obstruction.\n\nI am satisfied that the United States could get along if the rest\nof the world should be submerged, and I want to see this country\nin such a condition that it can be independent of the rest of\nmankind.\n\nThere is more mechanical genius in the United States than in the\nrest of the world, and this genius has been fostered and developed\nby protection. The Democracy wish to throw all this away--to make\nuseless this skill, this ingenuity, born of generations of application\nand thought. These deft and marvelous hands that create the\ncountless things of use and beauty to be worth no more than the\ncommon hands of ignorant delvers and shovelers. To the extent that\nthought is mingled with labor, labor becomes honorable and its\nburden lighter.\n\nThousands of millions of dollars have been invested on the faith\nof this policy--millions and millions of people are this day earning\ntheir bread by reason of protection, and they are better housed\nand better fed and better clothed than any other workmen on the\nglobe.\n\nThe intelligent people of this country will not be satisfied with\nPresident Cleveland's platform--with his free trade primer. They\nbelieve in good wages for good work, and they know that this is\nthe richest nation in the world. The Republic is worth at least\nsixty billion dollars. This vast sum is the result of labor, and\nthis labor has been protected either directly or indirectly. This\nvast sum has been made by the farmer, the mechanic, the laborer,\nthe miner, the inventor.\n\nProtection has given work and wages to the mechanic and a market\nto the farmer. The interests of all laborers in America--all men\nwho work--are identical. If the farmer pays more for his plow he\ngets more for his plowing. In old times, when the South manufactured\nnothing and raised only raw material--for the reason that its labor\nwas enslaved and could not be trusted with education enough to\nbecome skillful--it was in favor of free trade; it wanted to sell\nthe raw material to England and buy the manufactured article where\nit could buy the cheapest. Even under those circumstances it was\na short-sighted and unpatriotic policy. Now everything is changing\nin the South. They are beginning to see that he who simply raises\nraw material is destined to be forever poor. For instance, the\nfarmer who sells corn will never get rich; the farmer should sell\npork and beef and horses. So a nation, a State, that parts with\nits raw material, loses nearly all the profits, for the reason that\nthe profit rises with the skill requisite to produce. It requires\nonly brute strength to raise cotton; it requires something more to\nspin it, to weave it, and the more beautiful the fabric the greater\nthe skill, and consequently the higher the wages and the greater\nthe profit. In other words, the more thought is mingled with labor\nthe more valuable is the result.\n\nBesides all this, protection is the mother of economy; the cheapest\nat last, no matter whether the amount paid is less or more. It is\nfar better for us to make glass than to sell sand to other countries;\nthe profit on sand will be exceedingly small.\n\nThe interests of this country are united; they depend upon each\nother. You destroy one and the effect upon all the rest may be\ndisastrous. Suppose we had free trade to-day, what would become\nof the manufacturing interests to-morrow? The value of property\nwould fall thousands of millions of dollars in an instant. The\nfires would die out in thousands and thousands of furnaces,\ninnumerable engines would stop, thousands and thousands would stop\ndigging coal and iron and steel. What would the city that had been\nbuilt up by the factories be worth? What would be the effect on\nfarms in that neighborhood? What would be the effect on railroads,\non freights, on business--what upon the towns through which they\npassed? Stop making iron in Pennsylvania, and the State would be\nbankrupt in an hour. Give us free trade, and New Jersey, Connecticut\nand many other States would not be worth one dollar an acre.\n\nIf a man will think of the connection between all industries--of\nthe dependence and inter-dependence of each on all; of the subtle\nrelations between all human pursuits--he will see that to destroy\nsome of the grand interest makes financial ruin and desolation.\nI am not talking now about a tariff that is too high, because that\ntariff does not produce a surplus--neither am I asking to have that\nprotected which needs no protection--I am only insisting that all\nthe industries that have been fostered and that need protection\nshould be protected, and that we should turn our attention to the\ninterests of our own country, letting other nations take care of\nthemselves. If every American would use only articles produced by\nAmericans--if they would wear only American cloth, only American\nsilk--if we would absolutely stand by each other, the prosperity\nof this nation would be the marvel of human history. We can live\nat home, and we have now the ingenuity, the intelligence, the\nindustry to raise from nature everything that a nation needs.\n\n_Question_. What have you to say about the claim that Mr. Cleveland\ndoes not propose free trade?\n\n_Answer_. I suppose that he means what he said. His argument was\nall for free trade, and he endeavored to show to the farmer that\nhe lost altogether more money by protection, because he paid a\nhigher price for manufactured articles and received no more for\nwhat he had to sell. This certainly was an argument in favor of\nfree trade. And there is no way to decrease the surplus except to\nprohibit the importation of foreign articles, which certainly Mr.\nCleveland is not in favor of doing, or to reduce the tariff to a\npoint so low that no matter how much may be imported the surplus\nwill be reduced. If the message means anything it means free trade,\nand if there is any argument in it it is an argument in favor of\nabsolutely free trade. The party, not willing to say \"free trade\"\nuses the word \"reform.\" This is simply a mask and a pretence.\nThe party knows that the President made a mistake. The party,\nhowever, is so situated that it cannot get rid of Cleveland, and\nconsequently must take him with his mistake--they must take him\nwith his message, and then show that all he intended by \"free trade\"\nwas \"reform.\"\n\n_Question_. Who do you think ought to be nominated at Chicago?\n\n_Answer_. Personally, I am for General Gresham. I am saying\nnothing against the other prominent candidates. They have their\nfriends, and many of them are men of character and capacity, and\nwould make good Presidents. But I know of no man who has a better\nrecord than Gresham, and of no man who, in my judgment, would\nreceive a larger number of votes. I know of no Republican who\nwould not support Judge Gresham. I have never heard one say that\nhe had anything against him or know of any reason why he should\nnot be voted for. He is a man of great natural capacity. He is\ncandid and unselfish. He has for many years been engaged in the\nexamination and decision of important questions, of good principles,\nand consequently he has a trained mind. He knows how to take hold\nof a question, to get at a fact, to discover in a multitude of\ncomplications the real principle--the heart of the case. He has\nalways been a man of affairs. He is not simply a judge--that is\nto say, a legal pair of scales--he knows the effect of his decision\non the welfare of communities--he is not governed entirely by\nprecedents--he has opinions of his own. In the next place, he is\na man of integrity in all the relations of life. He is not a seeker\nafter place, and, so far as I know, he has done nothing for the\npurpose of inducing any human being to favor his nomination. I\nhave never spoken to him on the subject.\n\nIn the West he has developed great strength, in fact, his popularity\nhas astonished even his best friends. The great mass of people\nwant a perfectly reliable man--one who will be governed by his best\njudgment and by a desire to do the fair and honorable thing. It\nhas been stated that the great corporations might not support him\nwith much warmth for the reason that he has failed to decide certain\ncases in their favor. I believe that he has decided the law as he\nbelieved it to be, and that he has never been influenced in the\nslightest degree, by the character, position, or the wealth of the\nparties before him. It may be that some of the great financiers,\nthe manipulators, the creators of bonds and stocks, the blowers of\nfinancial bubbles, will not support him and will not contribute\nany money for the payment of election expenses, because they are\nperfectly satisfied that they could not make any arrangements with\nhim to get the money back, together with interest thereon, but the\npeople of this country are intelligent enough to know what that\nmeans, and they will be patriotic enough to see to it that no man\nneeds to bow or bend or cringe to the rich to attain the highest\nplace.\n\nThe possibility is that Mr. Blaine could have been nominated had\nhe not withdrawn, but having withdrawn, of course the party is\nreleased. Others were induced to become candidates, and under\nthese circumstances Mr. Blaine has hardly the right to change his\nmind, and certainly other persons ought not to change it for him.\n\n_Question_. Do you think that the friends of Gresham would support\nBlaine if he should be nominated?\n\n_Answer_. Undoubtedly they would. If they go into convention they\nmust abide the decision. It would be dishonorable to do that which\nyou would denounce in others. Whoever is nominated ought to receive\nthe support of all good Republicans. No party can exist that will\nnot be bound by its own decision. When the platform is made, then\nis the time to approve or reject. The conscience of the individual\ncannot be bound by the action of party, church or state. But when\nyou ask a convention to nominate your candidate, you really agree\nto stand by the choice of the convention. Principles are of more\nimportance than candidates. As a rule, men who refuse to support\nthe nominee, while pretending to believe in the platform, are giving\nan excuse for going over to the enemy. It is a pretence to cover\ndesertion. I hope that whoever may be nominated at Chicago will\nreceive the cordial support of the entire party, of every man who\nbelieves in Republican principles, who believes in good wages for\ngood work, and has confidence in the old firms of \"Mind and Muscle,\"\nof \"Head and Hand.\"\n\n--_New York Press_, May 27, 1888.\n\n\nLABOR, AND TARIFF REFORM.\n\n_Question_. What, in your opinion, is the condition of labor in\nthis country as compared with that abroad?\n\n_Answer_. In the first place, it is self-evident that if labor\nreceived more in other lands than in this the tide of emigration\nwould be changed. The workingmen would leave our shores. People\nwho believe in free trade are always telling us that the laboring\nman is paid much better in Germany than in the United States, and\nyet nearly every ship that comes from Germany is crammed with\nGermans, who, for some unaccountable reason, prefer to leave a\nplace where they are doing well and come to one where they must do\nworse.\n\nThe same thing can be said of Denmark and Sweden, of England,\nScotland, Ireland and of Italy. The truth is, that in all those\nlands the laboring man can earn just enough to-day to do the work\nof to-morrow; everything he earns is required to get food enough\nin his body and rags enough on his back to work from day to day,\nto toil from week to week. There are only three luxuries within\nhis reach--air, light, and water; probably a fourth might be added\n--death.\n\nIn those countries the few own the land, the few have the capital,\nthe few make the laws, and the laboring man is not a power. His\nopinion in neither asked nor heeded. The employers pay as little\nas they can. When the world becomes civilized everybody will want\nto pay what things are worth, but now capital is perfectly willing\nthat labor shall remain at the starvation line. Competition on\nevery hand tends to put down wages. The time will come when the\nwhole community will see that justice is economical. If you starve\nlaboring men you increase crime; you multiply, as they do in England,\nworkhouses, hospitals and all kinds of asylums, and these public\ninstitutions are for the purpose of taking care of the wrecks that\nhave been produced by greed and stinginess and meanness--that is\nto say, by the ignorance of capital.\n\n_Question_. What effect has the protective tariff on the condition\nof labor in this country?\n\n_Answer_. To the extent that the tariff keeps out the foreign\narticle it is a direct protection to American labor. Everything\nin this country is on a larger scale than in any other. There is\nfar more generosity among the manufacturers and merchants and\nmillionaires and capitalists of the United States than among those\nof any other country, although they are bad enough and mean enough\nhere.\n\nBut the great thing for the laboring man in the United States is\nthat he is regarded as a man. He is a unit of political power.\nHis vote counts just as much as that of the richest and most\npowerful. The laboring man has to be consulted. The candidate\nhas either to be his friend or to pretend to be his friend, before\nhe can succeed. A man running for the presidency could not say\nthe slightest word against the laboring man, or calculated to put\na stain upon industry, without destroying every possible chance of\nsuccess. Generally, every candidate tries to show that he is a\nlaboring man, or that he was a laboring man, or that his father\nwas before him. There is in this country very little of the spirit\nof caste--the most infamous spirit that ever infested the heartless\nbreast of the brainless head of a human being.\n\n_Question_. What will be the effect on labor of a departure in\nAmerican policy in the direction of free trade?\n\n_Answer_. If free trade could be adopted to-morrow there would be\nan instant shrinkage of values in this country. Probably the\nimmediate loss would equal twenty billion dollars--that is to say,\none-third of the value of the country. No one can tell its extent.\nAll thing are so interwoven that to destroy one industry cripples\nanother, and the influence keeps on until it touches the circumference\nof human interests.\n\nI believe that labor is a blessing. It never was and never will\nbe a curse. It is a blessed thing to labor for your wife and\nchildren, for your father and mother, and for the ones you love.\nIt is a blessed thing to have an object in life--something to do--\nsomething to call into play your best thoughts, to develop your\nfaculties and to make you a man. How beautiful, how charming, are\nthe dreams of the young mechanic, the artist, the musician, the\nactor and the student. How perfectly stupid must be the life of\na young man with nothing to do, no ambition, no enthusiasm--that\nis to say, nothing of the divine in him; the young man with an\nobject in life, of whose brain a great thought, a great dream has\ntaken possession, and in whose heart there is a great, throbbing\nhope. He looks forward to success--to wife, children, home--all\nthe blessings and sacred joys of human life. He thinks of wealth\nand fame and honor, and of a long, genial, golden, happy autumn.\n\nWork gives the feeling of independence, of self-respect. A man\nwho does something necessarily puts a value on himself. He feels\nthat he is a part of the world's force. The idler--no matter what\nhe says, no matter how scornfully he may look at the laborer--in\nhis very heart knows exactly what he is; he knows that he is a\ncounterfeit, a poor worthless imitation of a man.\n\nBut there is a vast difference between work and what I call \"toil.\"\nWhat must be the life of a man who can earn only one dollar or two\ndollars a day? If this man has a wife and a couple of children\nhow can the family live? What must they eat? What must they wear?\nFrom the cradle to the coffin they are ignorant of any luxury of\nlife. If the man is sick, if one of the children dies, how can\ndoctors and medicines be paid for? How can the coffin or the grave\nbe purchased? These people live on what might be called \"the snow\nline\"--just at that point where trees end and the mosses begin.\nWhat are such lives worth? The wages of months would hardly pay\nfor the ordinary dinner of the family of a rich man. The savings\nof a whole life would not purchase one fashionable dress, or the\nlace on it. Such a man could not save enough during his whole life\nto pay for the flowers of a fashionable funeral.\n\nAnd yet how often hundreds of thousands of persons, who spend\nthousands of dollars every year on luxuries, really wonder why the\nlaboring people should complain. They are astonished when a car\ndriver objects to working fourteen hours a day. Men give millions\nof dollars to carry the gospel to the heathen, and leave their own\nneighbors without bread; and these same people insist on closing\nlibraries and museums of art on Sunday, and yet Sunday is the only\nday that these institutions can be visited by the poor.\n\nThey even want to stop the street cars so that these workers, these\nmen and women, cannot go to the parks or the fields on Sunday.\nThey want stages stopped on fashionable avenues so that the rich\nmay not be disturbed in their prayers and devotions.\n\nThe condition of the workingman, even in America, is bad enough.\nIf free trade will not reduce wages what will? If manufactured\narticles become cheaper the skilled laborers of America must work\ncheaper or stop producing the articles. Every one knows that most\nof the value of a manufactured article comes from labor. Think of\nthe difference between the value of a pound of cotton and a pound\nof the finest cotton cloth; between a pound of flax and enough\npoint lace to weigh a pound; between a few ounces of paint, two or\nthree yards of canvas and a great picture; between a block of stone\nand a statue! Labor is the principal factor in price; when the\nprice falls wages must go down.\n\nI do not claim that protection is for the benefit of any particular\nclass, but that it is for the benefit not only of that particular\nclass, but of the entire country. In England the common laborer\nexpects to spend his old age in some workhouse. He is cheered\nthrough all his days of toil, through all his years of weariness,\nby the prospect of dying a respectable pauper. The women work as\nhard as the men. They toil in the iron mills. They make nails,\nthey dig coal, they toil in the fields.\n\nIn Europe they carry the hod, they work like beasts and with beasts,\nuntil they lose almost the semblance of human beings--until they\nlook inferior to the animals they drive. On the labor of these\ndeformed mothers, of these bent and wrinkled girls, of little boys\nwith the faces of old age, the heartless nobility live in splendor\nand extravagant idleness. I am not now speaking of the French\npeople, as France is the most prosperous country in Europe.\n\nLet us protect our mothers, our wives and our children from the\ndeformity of toil, from the depths of poverty.\n\n_Question_. Is not the ballot an assurance to the laboring man\nthat he can get fair treatment from his employer?\n\n_Answer_. The laboring man in this country has the political power,\nprovided he has the intelligence to know it and the intelligence\nto use it. In so far as laws can assist labor, the workingman has\nit in his power to pass such laws; but in most foreign lands the\nlaboring man has really no voice. It is enough for him to work\nand wait and suffer and emigrate. He can take refuge in the grave\nor go to America.\n\nIn the old country, where people have been taught that all blessing\ncome from the king, it is very natural for the poor to believe the\nother side of that proposition--that is to say, all evils come from\nthe king, from the government. They are rocked in the cradle of\nthis falsehood. So when they come to this country, if they are\nunfortunate, it is natural for them to blame the Government.\n\nThe discussion of these questions, however, has already done great\ngood. The workingman is becoming more and more intelligent. He\nis getting a better idea every day of the functions and powers and\nlimitations of government, and if the problem is ever worked out--\nand by \"problem\" I mean the just and due relations that should\nexist between labor and capital--it will be worked out here in\nAmerica.\n\n_Question_. What assurance has the American laborer that he will\nnot be ultimately swamped by foreign immigration?\n\n_Answer_. Most of the immigrants that come to American come because\nthey want a home. Nearly every one of them is what you may call\n\"land hungry.\" In his country, to own a piece of land was to be\nrespectable, almost a nobleman. The owner of a little land was\nregarded as the founder of a family--what you might call a \"village\ndynasty.\" When they leave their native shores for America, their\ndream is to become a land owner--to have fields, to own trees, and\nto listen to the music of their own brooks.\n\nThe moment they arrive the mass of them seek the West, where land\ncan be obtained. The great Northwest now is being filled with\nScandinavian farmers, with persons from every part of Germany--in\nfact from all foreign countries--and every year they are adding\nmillions of acres to the plowed fields of the Republic. This land\nhunger, this desire to own a home, to have a field, to have flocks\nand herds, to sit under your own vine and fig tree, will prevent\nforeign immigration from interfering to any hurtful degree with\nthe skilled workmen of America. These land owners, these farmers,\nbecome consumers of manufactured articles. They keep the wheels\nand spindles turning and the fires in the forges burning.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of Cleveland's message?\n\n_Answer_. Only the other day I read a speech made by the Hon.\nWilliam D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, upon this subject, in which he\nsays in answer to what he calls \"the puerile absurdity of President\nCleveland's assumption\" that the duty is always added to the cost,\nnot only of imported commodities, but to the price of like commodities\nproduced in this country, \"that the duties imposed by our Government\non sugar reduced to _ad valorem_ were never so high as now, and\nthe price of sugar was never in this country so low as it is now.\"\nHe also showed that this tax on sugar has made it possible for us\nto produce sugar from other plants and he gives the facts in relation\nto corn sugar.\n\nWe are now using annually nineteen million bushels of corn for the\npurpose of making glucose or corn sugar. He shows that in this\nindustry alone there has been a capital invested of eleven million\ndollars; that seven hundred and thirty-two thousand acres of land\nare required to furnish the supply, and that this one industry now\ngives employment to about twenty-two thousand farmers, about five\nthousand laborers in factories, and that the annual value of this\nproduct of corn sugar is over seventeen million dollars.\n\nHe also shows what we may expect from the cultivation of the beet.\nI advise every one to read that speech, so that they may have some\nidea of the capabilities of this country, of the vast wealth asking\nfor development, of the countless avenues opened for ingenuity,\nenergy and intelligence.\n\n_Question_. Does the protective tariff cheapen the prices of\ncommodities to the laboring man?\n\n_Answer_. In this there are involved two questions. If the tariff\nis so low that the foreign article is imported, of course this\ntariff is added to the cost and must be paid by the consumer; but\nif the protective tariff is so high that the importer cannot pay\nit, and as a consequence the article is produced in America, then\nit depends largely upon competition whether the full amount of the\ntariff will be added to the article. As a rule, competition will\nsettle that question in America, and the article will be sold as\ncheaply as the producers can afford.\n\nFor instance: If there is a tariff, we will say of fifty cents on\na pair of shoes, and this tariff is so low that the foreign article\ncan afford to pay it, then that tariff, of course, must be paid by\nthe consumer. But suppose the tariff was five dollars on a pair\nof shoes--that is to say, absolutely prohibitory--does any man in\nhis senses say that five dollars would be added to each pair of\nAmerican shoes? Of course, the statement is the answer.\n\nI think it is the duty of the laboring man in this country, first,\nthoroughly to post himself upon these great questions, to endeavor\nto understand his own interest as well as the interest of his\ncountry, and if he does, I believe he will arrive at the conclusion\nthat it is far better to have the country filled with manufacturers\nthan to be employed simply in the raising of raw material. I think\nhe will come to the conclusion that we had better have skilled\nlabor here, and that it is better to pay for it than not to have\nit. I think he will find that it is better for America to be\nsubstantially independent of the rest of the world. I think he\nwill conclude that nothing is more desirable than the development\nof American brain, and that nothing better can be raised than great\nand splendid men and women. I think he will conclude that the\ncloud coming from the factories, from the great stacks and chimneys,\nis the cloud on which will be seen, and always seen, the bow of\nAmerican promise.\n\n_Question_. What have you to say about tariff reform?\n\n_Answer_. I have this to say: That the tariff is for the most\npart the result of compromises--that is, one State wishing to have\nsomething protected agrees to protect something else in some other\nState, so that, as a matter of fact, many things are protected that\nneed no protection, and many things are unprotected that ought to\nbe cared for by the Government.\n\nI am in favor of a sensible reform of the tariff--that is to say,\nI do not wish to put it in the power of the few to practice extortion\nupon the many. Congress should always be wide awake, and whenever\nthere is any abuse it should be corrected. At the same time, next\nto having the tariff just--next in importance is to have it stable.\nIt does us great injury to have every dollar invested in manufactures\nfrightened every time Congress meets. Capital should feel secure.\nInsecurity calls for a higher interest, wants to make up for the\nadditional risk, whereas, when a dollar feels absolutely certain\nthat it is well invested, that it is not to be disturbed, it is\nsatisfied with a very low rate of interest.\n\nThe present agitation--the message of President Cleveland upon\nthese questions--will cost the country many hundred millions of\ndollars.\n\n_Question_. I see that some one has been charging that Judge\nGresham is an Infidel?\n\n_Answer_. I have known Judge Gresham for many years, and of course\nhave heard him talk upon many subjects, but I do not remember ever\ndiscussing with him a religious topic. I only know that he believes\nin allowing every man to express his opinions, and that he does\nnot hate a man because he differs with him. I believe that he\nbelieves in intellectual hospitality, and that he would give all\nchurches equal rights, and would treat them all with the utmost\nfairness. I regard him as a fair-minded, intelligent and honest\nman, and that is enough for me. I am satisfied with the way he\nacts, and care nothing about his particular creed. I like a manly\nman, whether he agrees with me or not. I believe that President\nGarfield was a minister of the Church of the Disciples--that made\nno difference to me. Mr. Blaine is a member of some church in\nAugusta--I care nothing for that. Whether Judge Gresham belongs\nto any church, I do not know. I never asked him, but I know he\ndoes not agree with me by a large majority.\n\nIn this country, where a divorce has been granted between church\nand state, the religious opinions of candidates should be let alone.\nTo make the inquiry is a piece of impertinence--a piece of impudence.\nI have voted for men of all persuasions and expect to keep right\non, and if they are not civilized enough to give me the liberty\nthey ask for themselves, why I shall simply set them an example of\ndecency.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the political outlook?\n\n_Answer_. The people of this country have a great deal of\nintelligence. Tariff and free trade and protection and home\nmanufactures and American industries--all these things will be\ndiscussed in every schoolhouse of the country, and in thousands\nand thousands of political meetings, and when next November comes\nyou will see the Democratic party overthrown and swept out of power\nby a cyclone. All other questions will be lost sight of. Even\nthe Prohibitionists would rather drink beer in a prosperous country\nthan burst with cold water and hard times.\n\nThe preservation of what we have will be the great question. This\nis the richest country and the most prosperous country, and I\nbelieve that the people have sense enough to continue the policy\nthat has given them those results. I never want to see the\ncivilization of the Old World, or rather the barbarism of the Old\nWorld, gain a footing on this continent. I am an American. I\nbelieve in American ideas--that is to say, in equal rights, and in\nthe education and civilization of all the people.\n\n--_New York Press_, June 3, 1888.\n\n\nCLEVELAND AND THURMAN.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the Democratic nominations?\n\n_Answer_. In the first place, I hope that this campaign is to be\nfought on the issues involved, and not on the private characters\nof the candidates. All that they have done as politicians--all\nmeasures that they have favored or opposed--these are the proper\nsubjects of criticism; in all other respects I think it better to\nlet the candidates alone. I care but little about the private\ncharacter of Mr. Cleveland or of Mr. Thurman. The real question\nis, what do they stand for? What policy do they advocate? What\nare the reasons for and against the adoption of the policy they\npropose?\n\nI do not regard Cleveland as personally popular. He has done\nnothing, so far as I know, calculated to endear him to the popular\nheart. He certainly is not a man of enthusiasm. He has said\nnothing of a striking or forcible character. His messages are\nexceedingly commonplace. He is not a man of education, of wide\nreading, of refined tastes, or of general cultivation. He has some\nfirmness and a good deal of obstinacy, and he was exceedingly\nfortunate in his marriage.\n\nFour years ago he was distinctly opposed to a second term. He was\nthen satisfied that no man should be elected President more than\nonce. He was then fearful that a President might use his office,\nhis appointing power, to further his own ends instead of for the\ngood of the people. He started, undoubtedly, with that idea in\nhis mind. He was going to carry out the civil service doctrine to\nthe utmost. But when he had been President a few months he was\nexceedingly unpopular with his party. The Democrats who elected\nhim had been out of office for twenty-five years. During all those\nyears they had watched the Republicans sitting at the national\nbanquet. Their appetites had grown keener and keener, and they\nexpected when the 4th of March, 1885, came that the Republicans\nwould be sent from the table and that they would be allowed to tuck\nthe napkins under their chins. The moment Cleveland got at the\nhead of the table he told his hungry followers that there was\nnothing for them, and he allowed the Republicans to go on as usual.\n\nIn a little while he began to hope for a second term, and gradually\nthe civil service notion faded from his mind. He stuck to it long\nenough to get the principal mugwump papers committed to him and to\nhis policy; long enough to draw their fire and to put them in a\nplace where they could not honorably retreat without making themselves\nliable to the charge of having fought only for the loaves and\nfishes. As a matter of fact, no men were hungrier for office than\nthe gentlemen who had done so much for civil service reform. They\nwere so earnest in the advocacy of that principle that they insisted\nthat only their followers should have place; but the real rank and\nfile, the men who had been Democrats through all the disastrous\nyears, and who had prayed and fasted, became utterly disgusted with\nMr. Cleveland's administration and they were not slow to express\ntheir feelings. Mr. Cleveland saw that he was in danger of being\nleft with no supporters, except a few who thought themselves too\nrespectable really to join the Democratic party. So for the last\ntwo years, and especially the last year, he turned his attention\nto pacifying the real Democrats. He is not the choice of the\nDemocratic party. Although unanimously nominated, I doubt if he\nwas the unanimous choice of a single delegate.\n\nAnother very great mistake, I think, has been made by Mr. Cleveland.\nHe seems to have taken the greatest delight in vetoing pension\nbills, and they seem to be about the only bills he has examined,\nand he has examined them as a lawyer would examine the declaration,\nbrief or plea of his opponent. He has sought for technicalities,\nto the end that he might veto these bills. By this course he has\nlost the soldier vote, and there is no way by which he can regain\nit. Upon this point I regard the President as exceedingly weak.\nHe has shown about the same feeling toward the soldier now that he\ndid during the war. He was not with them then either in mind or\nbody. He is not with them now. His sympathies are on the other\nside. He has taken occasion to show his contempt for the Democratic\nparty again and again. This certainly will not add to his strength.\nHe has treated the old leaders with great arrogance. He has cared\nnothing for their advice, for their opinions, or for their feelings.\n\nThe principal vestige of monarchy or despotism in our Constitution\nis the veto power, and this has been more liberally used by Mr.\nCleveland than by any other President. This shows the nature of\nthe man and how narrow he is, and through what a small intellectual\naperture he views the world. Nothing is farther from true democracy\nthan this perpetual application of the veto power. As a matter of\nfact, it should be abolished, and the utmost that a President should\nbe allowed to do, would be to return a bill with his objections,\nand the bill should then become a law upon being passed by both\nhouses by a simple majority. This would give the Executive the\nopportunity of calling attention to the supposed defects, and\ngetting the judgment of Congress a second time.\n\nI am perfectly satisfied that Mr. Cleveland is not popular with\nhis party. The noise and confusion of the convention, the cheers\nand cries, were all produced and manufactured for effect and for\nthe purpose of starting the campaign.\n\nNow, as to Senator Thurman. During the war he occupied substantially\nthe same position occupied by Mr. Cleveland. He was opposed to\nputting down the Rebellion by force, and as I remember it, he rather\njustified the people of the South for going with their States.\nOhio was in favor of putting down the Rebellion, yet Mr. Thurman,\nby some peculiar logic of his own, while he justified Southern\npeople for going into rebellion because they followed their States,\njustified himself for not following his State. His State was for\nthe Union. His State was in favor of putting down rebellion. His\nState was in favor of destroying slavery. Certainly, if a man is\nbound to follow his State, he is equally bound when the State is\nright. It is hardly reasonable to say that a man is only bound to\nfollow his State when his State is wrong; yet this was really the\nposition of Senator Thurman.\n\nI saw the other day that some gentlemen in this city had given as\na reason for thinking that Thurman would strengthen the ticket,\nthat he had always been right on the financial question. Now, as\na matter of fact, he was always wrong. When it was necessary for\nthe Government to issue greenbacks, he was a hard money man--he\nbelieved in the mint drops--and if that policy had been carried\nout, the Rebellion could not have been suppressed. After the\nsuppression of the Rebellion, and when hundreds and hundreds of\nmillions of greenbacks were afloat, and the Republican party proposed\nto redeem them in gold, and to go back--as it always intended to\ndo--to hard money--to a gold and silver basis--then Senator Thurman,\nholding aloft the red bandanna, repudiated hard money, opposed\nresumption, and came out for rag currency as being the best. Let\nhim change his ideas--put those first that he had last--and you\nmight say that he was right on the currency question; but when the\ncountry needed the greenback he was opposed to it, and when the\ncountry was able to redeem the greenback, he was opposed to it.\n\nIt gives me pleasure to say that I regard Senator Thurman as a man\nof ability, and I have no doubt that he was coaxed into his last\nfinancial position by the Democratic party, by the necessities of\nOhio, and by the force and direction of the political wind. No\nmatter how much respectability he adds to the ticket, I do not\nbelieve that he will give any great strength. In the first place,\nhe is an old man. He has substantially finished his career. Young\nmen cannot attach themselves to him, because he has no future.\nHis following is not an army of the young and ambitious--it is\nrather a funeral procession. Yet, notwithstanding this fact, he\nwill furnish most of the enthusiasm for this campaign--and that\nwill be done with his handkerchief. The Democratic banner is\nThurman's red bandanna. I do not believe that it will be possible\nfor the Democracy to carry Ohio by reason of Thurman's nomination,\nand I think the failure to nominate Gray or some good man from that\nState, will lose Indiana. So, while I have nothing to say against\nSenator Thurman, nothing against his integrity or his ability,\nstill, under the circumstances, I do not think his nomination a\nstrong one.\n\n_Question_. Do you think that the nominations have been well\nreceived throughout the United States?\n\n_Answer_. Not as well as in England. I see that all the Tory\npapers regard the nominations as excellent--especially that of\nCleveland. Every Englishman who wants Ireland turned into a\npenitentiary, and every Irishman to be treated as a convict, is\ndelighted with the action of the St. Louis convention. England\nknows what she wants. Her market is growing small. A few years\nago she furnished manufactured articles to a vast portion of the\nworld. Millions of her customers have become ingenious enough to\nmanufacture many things that they need, so the next thing England\ndid was to sell them the machinery. Now they are beginning to make\ntheir own machinery. Consequently, English trade is falling off.\nShe must have new customers. Nothing would so gratify her as to\nhave sixty millions of Americans buy her wares. If she could see\nour factories still and dead; if she could put out the fires of\nour furnaces and forges; there would come to her the greatest\nprosperity she has ever known. She would fatten on our misfortunes\n--grow rich and powerful and arrogant upon our poverty. We would\nbecome her servants. We would raise the raw material with ignorant\nlabor and allow her children to reap all the profit of its manufacture,\nand in the meantime to become intelligent and cultured while we\ngrew poor and ignorant.\n\nThe greatest blow that can be inflicted upon England is to keep\nher manufactured articles out of the United States. Sixty millions\nof Americans buy and use more than five hundred millions of Asiatics\n--buy and use more than all of China, all of India and all of\nAfrica. One civilized man has a thousand times the wants of a\nsavage or of a semi-barbarian. Most of the customers of England\nwant a few yards of calico, some cheap jewelry, a little powder,\na few knives and a few gallons of orthodox rum.\n\nTo-day the United States is the greatest market in the world. The\ncommerce between the States is almost inconceivable in its immensity.\nIn order that you may have some idea of the commerce of this country,\nit is only necessary to remember one fact. We have railroads enough\nengaged in this commerce to make six lines around the globe. The\naddition of a million Americans to our population gives us a better\nmarket than a monopoly of ten millions of Asiatics. England, with\nher workhouses, with her labor that barely exists, wishes this\nmarket, and wishes to destroy the manufactures of America, and she\nexpects Irish-Americans to assist her in this patriotic business.\n\nNow, as to the enthusiasm in this country. I fail to see it. The\nnominations have fallen flat. It has been known for a long time\nthat Cleveland was to be nominated. That has all been discounted,\nand the nomination of Judge Thurman has been received in a quite\nmatter-of-fact way. It may be that his enthusiasm was somewhat\ndampened by what might be called the appearance above the horizon\nof the morning star of this campaign--Oregon. What a star to rise\nover the work of the St. Louis convention! What a prophecy for\nDemocrats to commence business with! Oregon, with the free trade\nissue, seven thousand to eight thousand Republican majority--the\nlargest ever given by that State--Oregon speaks for the Pacific\nCoast.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the Democratic platform?\n\n_Answer_. Mr. Watterson was kind enough to say that before they\ntook the roof off of the house they were going to give the occupants\na chance to get out. By the \"house\" I suppose he means the great\nworkshop of America. By the \"roof\" he means protection; and by\nthe \"occupants\" the mechanics. He is not going to turn them out\nat once, or take the roof off in an instant, but this is to be done\ngradually.\n\nIn other words, they will remove it shingle by shingle or tile by\ntile, until it becomes so leaky or so unsafe that the occupants--\nthat is to say, the mechanics, will leave the building.\n\nThe first thing in the platform is a reaffirmation of the platform\nof 1884, and an unqualified endorsement of President Cleveland's\nmessage on the tariff. And if President Cleveland's message has\nany meaning whatever, it means free trade--not instantly, it may\nbe--but that is the object and the end to be attained. All his\nreasoning, if reasoning it can be called, is in favor of absolute\nfree trade. The issue is fairly made--shall American labor be\nprotected, or must the American laborer take his chances with the\nlabor market of the world? Must he stand upon an exact par with\nthe laborers of Belgium and England and Germany, not only, but with\nthe slaves and serfs of other countries? Must he be reduced to\nthe diet of the old country? Is he to have meat on holidays and\na reasonably good dinner on Christmas, and live the rest of the\nyear on crusts, crumbs, scraps, skimmed milk, potatoes, turnips,\nand a few greens that he can steal from the corners of fences? Is\nhe to rely for meat, on poaching, and then is he to be transported\nto some far colony for the crime of catching a rabbit? Are our\nworkingmen to wear wooden shoes?\n\nNow, understand me, I do not believe that the Democrats think that\nfree trade would result in disaster. Their minds are so constituted\nthat they really believe that free trade would be a great blessing.\nI am not calling in question their honesty. I am simply disputing\nthe correctness of their theory. It makes no difference, as a\nmatter of fact, whether they are honest or dishonest. Free trade\nestablished by honest people would be just as injurious as if\nestablished by dishonest people. So there is no necessity of\nraising the question of intention. Consequently, I admit that they\nare doing the best they know now. This is not admitting much, but\nit is something, as it tends to take from the discussion all ill\nfeeling.\n\nWe all know that the tariff protects special interests in particular\nStates. Louisiana is not for free trade. It may be for free trade\nin everything except sugar. It is willing that the rest of the\ncountry should pay an additional cent or two a pound on sugar for\nits benefit, and while receiving the benefit it does not wish to\nbear its part of the burden. If the other States protect the sugar\ninterests in Louisiana, certainly that State ought to be willing\nto protect the wool interest in Ohio, the lead and hemp interest\nin Missouri, the lead and wool interest in Colorado, the lumber\ninterest in Minnesota, the salt and lumber interest in Michigan,\nthe iron interest in Pennsylvania, and so I might go on with a list\nof the States--because each one has something that it wishes to\nhave protected.\n\nIt sounds a little strange to hear a Democratic convention cry out\nthat the party \"is in favor of the maintenance of an indissoluble\nunion of free and indestructible States.\" Only a little while ago\nthe Democratic party regarded it as the height of tyranny to coerce\na free State. Can it be said that a State is \"free\" that is\nabsolutely governed by the Nation? Is a State free that can make\nno treaty with any other State or country--that is not permitted\nto coin money or to declare war? Why should such a State be called\nfree? The truth is that the States are not free in that sense.\nThe Republican party believes that this is a Nation and that the\nnational power is the highest, and that every citizen owes the\nhighest allegiance to the General Government and not to his State.\nIn other words, we are not Virginians or Mississippians or Delawareans\n--we are Americans. The great Republic is a free Nation, and the\nStates are but parts of that Nation. The doctrine of State\nSovereignty was born of the institution of slavery. In the history\nof our country, whenever anything wrong was to be done, this doctrine\nof State Sovereignty was appealed to. It protected the slave-trade\nuntil the year 1808. It passed the Fugitive Slave Law. It made\nevery citizen in the North a catcher of his fellow-man--made it\nthe duty of free people to enslave others. This doctrine of State\nRights was appealed to for the purpose of polluting the Territories\nwith the institution of slavery. To deprive a man of his liberty,\nto put him back into slavery, State lines were instantly obliterated;\nbut whenever the Government wanted to protect one of its citizens\nfrom outrage, then the State lines became impassable barriers, and\nthe sword of justice fell in twain across the line of a State.\n\nPeople forget that the National Government is the creature of the\npeople. The real sovereign is the people themselves. Presidents\nand congressmen and judges are the creatures of the people. If we\nhad a governing class--if men were presidents or senators by virtue\nof birth--then we might talk about the danger of centralization;\nbut if the people are sufficiently intelligent to govern themselves,\nthey will never create a government for the destruction of their\nliberties, and they are just as able to protect their rights in\nthe General Government as they are in the States. If you say that\nthe sovereignty of the State protects labor, you might as well say\nthat the sovereignty of the county protects labor in the State and\nthat the sovereignty of the town protects labor in the county.\n\nOf all subjects in the world the Democratic party should avoid\nspeaking of \"a critical period of our financial affairs, resulting\nfrom over taxation.\" How did taxation become necessary? Who\ncreated the vast debt that American labor must pay? Who made this\ntaxation of thousands of millions necessary? Why were the greenbacks\nissued? Why were the bonds sold? Who brought about \"a critical\nperiod of our financial affairs\"? How has the Democratic party\n\"averted disaster\"? How could there be a disaster with a vast\nsurplus in the treasury? Can you find in the graveyard of nations\nthis epitaph: \"Died of a Surplus\"? Has any nation ever been known\nto perish because it had too much gold and too much silver, and\nbecause its credit was better than that of any other nation on the\nearth? The Democrats seem to think--and it is greatly to their\ncredit--that they have prevented the destruction of the Government\nwhen the treasury was full--when the vaults were overflowing. What\nwould they have done had the vaults been empty? Let them wrestle\nwith the question of poverty; let them then see how the Democratic\nparty would succeed. When it is necessary to create credit, to\ninspire confidence, not only in our own people, but in the nations\nof the world--which of the parties is best adapted for the task?\nThe Democratic party congratulates itself that it has not been\nruined by a Republican surplus! What good boys we are! We have\nnot been able to throw away our legacy!\n\nIs it not a little curious that the convention plumed itself on\nhaving paid out more for pensions and bounties to the soldiers and\nsailors of the Republic than was ever paid before during an equal\nperiod? It goes wild in its pretended enthusiasm for the President\nwho has vetoed more pension bills than all the other Presidents put\ntogether.\n\nThe platform informs us that \"the Democratic party has adopted and\nconsistently pursued and affirmed a prudent foreign policy, preserving\npeace with all nations.\" Does it point with pride to the Mexican\nfiasco, or does it rely entirely upon the great fishery triumph?\nWhat has the administration done--what has it accomplished in the\nfield of diplomacy?\n\nWhen we come to civil service, about how many Federal officials\nwere at the St. Louis convention? About how many have taken part\nin the recent nominations? In other words, who has been idle?\n\nWe have recently been told that the wages of workingmen are just\nas high in the old country as in this, when you take into consideration\nthe cost of living. We have always been told by all the free trade\npapers and orators, that the tariff has no bearing whatever upon\nwages, and yet, the Democrats have not succeeded in convincing\nthemselves. I find in their platform this language: \"A fair and\ncareful revision of our tax laws, with due allowance for the\ndifference between the wages of American and foreign labor, must\npromote and encourage every branch of such industries and enterprises\nby giving them the assurance of an extended market and steady and\ncontinuous operations.\"\n\nIt would seem from this that the Democratic party admits that wages\nare higher here than in foreign countries. Certainly they do not\nmean to say that they are lower. If they are higher here than in\nforeign countries, the question arises, why are they higher? If\nyou took off the tariff, the presumption is that they would be as\nlow here as anywhere else, because this very Democratic convention\nsays: \"A fair and careful revision of our tax laws, with due\nallowance for the difference between wages.\" In other words, they\nwould keep tariff enough on to protect our workingmen from the low\nwages of the foreigner--consequently, we have the admission of the\nDemocratic party that in order to keep wages in this country higher\nthan they are in Belgium, in Italy, in England and in Germany, we\nmust protect home labor. Then follows the _non sequitur_, which\nis a Democratic earmark. They tell us that by keeping a tariff,\n\"making due allowance for the difference between wages, all the\nindustries and enterprises would be encouraged and promoted by\ngiving them the assurance of an extended market.\" What does the\nword \"extended\" mean? If it means anything, it means a market in\nother countries. In other words, we will put the tariff so low\nthat the wages of American workingmen will be so low that he can\ncompete with the laborers of other countries; otherwise his market\ncould not be \"extended.\" What does this mean? There is evidently\na lack of thought here. The two things cannot be accomplished in\nthat way. If the tariff raises American wages, the American cannot\ncompete in foreign markets with the men who work for half the price.\nWhat may be the final result is another question. American industry\nproperly protected, American genius properly fostered, may invent\nways and means--such wonderful machinery, such quick, inexpensive\nprocesses, that in time American genius may produce at a less rate\nthan any other country, for the reason that the laborers of other\ncountries will not be as intelligent, will not be as independent,\nwill not have the same ambition.\n\nFine phrases will not deceive the people of this country. The\nAmerican mechanic already has a market of sixty millions of people,\nand, as I said before, the best market in the world. This country\nis now so rich, so prosperous, that it is the greatest market of\nthe earth, even for luxuries. It is the best market for pictures,\nfor works of art. It is the best market for music and song. It\nis the best market for dramatic genius, and it is the best market\nfor skilled labor, the best market for common labor, and in this\ncountry the poor man to-day has the best chance--he can look forward\nto becoming the proprietor of a home, of some land, to independence,\nto respectability, and to an old age without want and without\ndisgrace.\n\nThe platform, except upon this question of free trade, means very\nlittle. There are other features in it which I have not at present\ntime to examine, but shall do so hereafter. I want to take it up\npoint by point and find really what it means, what its scope is,\nand what the intentions were of the gentlemen who made it.\n\nBut it may be proper to say here, that in my judgment it is a very\nweak and flimsy document, as Victor Hugo would say, \"badly cut and\nbadly sewed.\"\n\nOf course, I know that the country will exist whatever party may\nbe in power. I know that all our blessings do not come from laws,\nor from the carrying into effect of certain policies, and probably\nI could pay no greater compliment to any country than to say that\neven eight years of Democratic rule cannot materially affect her\ndestiny.\n\n--_New York Press_, June 10, 1888.\n\n\nTHE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM OF 1888.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the signs of the times so far as\nthe campaign has progressed?\n\n_Answer_. The party is now going through a period of misrepresentation.\nEvery absurd meaning that can be given to any combination of words\nwill be given to every plank of the platform. In the heat of\npartisan hatred every plank will look warped and cracked. A great\neffort is being made to show that the Republican party is in favor\nof intemperance,--that the great object now is to lessen the price\nof all intoxicants and increase the cost of all the necessaries of\nlife. The papers that are for nothing but reform of everything\nand everybody except themselves, are doing their utmost to show\nthat the Republican party is the enemy of honesty and temperance.\n\nThe other day, at a Republican ratification meeting, I stated among\nother things, that we could not make great men and great women\nsimply by keeping them out of temptation--that nobody would think\nof tying the hands of a person behind them and then praise him for\nnot picking pockets; that great people were great enough to withstand\ntemptation, and in that connection I made this statement: \"Temperance\ngoes hand in hand with liberty\"--the idea being that when a chain\nis taken from the body an additional obligation is perceived by\nthe mind. These good papers--the papers that believe in honest\npolitics--stated that I said: \"Temperance goes hand in hand with\nliquor.\" This was not only in the reports of the meeting, but this\npassage was made the subject of several editorials. It hardly\nseems possible that any person really thought that such a statement\nhad been expressed. The Republican party does not want free whiskey\n--it wants free men; and a great many people in the Republican\nparty are great enough to know that temperance does go hand in hand\nwith liberty; they are great enough to know that all legislation\nas to what we shall eat, as to what we shall drink, and as to\nwherewithal we shall be clothed, partakes of the nature of petty,\nirritating and annoying tyranny. They also know that the natural\nresult is to fill a country with spies, hypocrites and pretenders,\nand that when a law is not in accordance with an enlightened public\nsentiment, it becomes either a dead letter, or, when a few fanatics\nendeavor to enforce it, a demoralizer of courts, of juries and of\npeople.\n\nThe attack upon the platform by temperance people is doing no harm,\nfor the reason that long before November comes these people will\nsee the mistake they have made. It seems somewhat curious that\nthe Democrats should attack the platform if they really believe\nthat it means free whiskey.\n\nThe tax was levied during the war. It was a war measure. The\nGovernment was _in extremis_, and for that reason was obliged to\nobtain a revenue from every possible article of value. The war is\nover; the necessity has disappeared; consequently the Government\nshould return to the methods of peace. We have too many Government\nofficials. Let us get rid of collectors and gaugers and inspectors.\nLet us do away with all this machinery, and leave the question to\nbe settled by the State. If the temperance people themselves would\ntake a second thought, they would see that when the Government\ncollects eighty or ninety million dollars from a tax on whiskey,\nthe traffic becomes entrenched, it becomes one of the pillars of\nthe State, one of the great sources of revenue. Let the States\nattend to this question, and it will be a matter far easier to deal\nwith.\n\nThe Prohibitionists are undoubtedly honest, and their object is to\ndestroy the traffic, to prevent the manufacture of whiskey. Can\nthey do this as long as the Government collects ninety million\ndollars per annum from that one source? If there is anything\nwhatever in this argument, is it not that the traffic pays a bribe\nof ninety million dollars a year for its life? Will not the farmers\nsay to the temperance men: \"The distilleries pay the taxes, the\ndistilleries raise the price of corn; is it not better for the\nGeneral Government to look to another direction for its revenues\nand leave the States to deal as they may see proper with this\nquestion?\"\n\nWith me, it makes no difference what is done with the liquor--\nwhether it is used in the arts or not--it is a question of policy.\nThere is no moral principle involved on our side of the question,\nto say the least of it. If it is a crime to make and sell intoxicating\nliquors, the Government, by licensing persons to make and sell,\nbecomes a party to the crime. If one man poisons another, no matter\nhow much the poison costs, the crime is the same; and if the person\nfrom whom the poison was purchased knew how it was to be used, he\nis also a murderer.\n\nThere have been many reformers in this world, and they have seemed\nto imagine that people will do as they say. They think that you\ncan use people as you do bricks or stones; that you can lay them\nup in walls and they will remain where they are placed; but the\ntruth is, you cannot do this. The bricks are not satisfied with\neach other--they go away in the night--in the morning there is no\nwall. Most of these reformers go up what you might call the Mount\nSinai of their own egotism, and there, surrounded by the clouds of\ntheir own ignorance, they meditate upon the follies and the frailties\nof their fellow-men and then come down with ten commandments for\ntheir neighbors.\n\nAll this talk about the Republican platform being in favor of\nintemperance, so far as the Democratic party is concerned, is pure,\nunadulterated hypocrisy--nothing more, nothing less. So far as\nthe Prohibitionists are concerned, they may be perfectly honest,\nbut, if they will think a moment, they will see how perfectly\nillogical they are. No one can help sympathizing with any effort\nhonestly made to do away with the evil of intemperance. I know\nthat many believe that these evils can be done away with by\nlegislation. While I sympathize with the objects that these people\nwish to attain, I do not believe in the means they suggest. As\nlife becomes valuable, people will become temperate, because they\nwill take care of themselves. Temperance is born of the countless\ninfluences of civilization. Character cannot be forced upon anybody;\nit is a growth, the seeds of which are within. Men cannot be forced\ninto real temperance any more than they can be frightened into real\nmorality. You may frighten a man to that degree that he will not\ndo a certain thing, but you cannot scare him badly enough to prevent\nhis wanting to do that thing. Reformation begins on the inside,\nand the man refrains because he perceives that he ought to refrain,\nnot because his neighbors say that he ought to refrain. No one\nwould think of praising convicts in jail for being regular at their\nmeals, or for not staying out nights; and it seems to me that when\nthe Prohibitionists--when the people who are really in favor of\ntemperance--look the ground all over they will see that it is far\nbetter to support the Republican party than to throw their votes\naway; and the Republicans will see that it is simply a proposition\nto go back to the original methods of collecting revenue for the\nGovernment--that it is simply abandoning the measures made necessary\nby war, and that it is giving to the people the largest liberty\nconsistent with the needs of the Government, and that it is only\nleaving these questions where in time of peace they properly belong\n--to the States themselves.\n\n_Question_. Do you think that the Knights of Labor will cut any\nmaterial figure in this election?\n\n_Answer_. The Knights of Labor will probably occupy substantially\nthe same position as other laborers and other mechanics. If they\nclearly see that the policy advocated by the Republican party is\nto their interest, that it will give them better wages than the\npolicy advocated by the Democrats, then they will undoubtedly\nsupport our ticket. There is more or less irritation between\nemployers and employed. All men engaged in manufacturing and\nneither good nor generous. Many of them get work for as little as\npossible, and sell its product for all they can get. It is impossible\nto adopt a policy that will not by such people be abused. Many of\nthem would like to see the working man toil for twelve hours or\nfourteen or sixteen in each day. Many of them wonder why they need\nsleep or food, and are perfectly astonished when they ask for pay.\nIn some instances, undoubtedly, the working men will vote against\ntheir own interests simply to get even with such employers.\n\nSome laboring men have been so robbed, so tyrannized over, that\nthey would be perfectly willing to feel for the pillars and take\na certain delight in a destruction that brought ruin even to\nthemselves. Such manufacturers, however, I believe to be in a\nminority, and the laboring men, under the policy of free trade,\nwould be far more in their power. When wages fall below a certain\npoint, then comes degradation, loss of manhood, serfdom and slavery.\nIf any man has the right to vote for his own interests, certainly\nthe man who labors is that man, and every working man having in\nhis will a part of the sovereignty of this nation, having within\nhim a part of the lawmaking power, should have the intelligence\nand courage to vote for his own interests; he should vote for good\nwages; he should vote for a policy that would enable him to lay\nsomething by for the winter of his life, that would enable him to\nearn enough to educate his children, enough to give him a home and\na fireside.\n\nHe need not do this in anger or for revenge, but because it is\njust, because it is right, and because the working people are in\na majority. They ought to control the world, because they have\nmade the world what it is. They have given everything there is of\nvalue. Labor plows every field, builds every house, fashions\neverything of use, and when that labor is guided by intelligence\nthe world is prosperous.\n\nHe who thinks good thoughts is a laborer--one of the greatest.\nThe man who invented the reaper will be harvesting the fields for\nthousands of years to come. If labor is abused in this country\nthe laborers have it within their power to defend themselves.\n\nAll my sympathies are with the men who toil. I shed very few tears\nover bankers and millionaires and corporations--they can take care\nof themselves. My sympathies are with the man who has nothing to\nsell but his strength; nothing to sell but his muscle and his\nintelligence; who has no capital except that which his mother gave\nhim--a capital he must sell every day; my sympathies are with him;\nand I want him to have a good market; and I want it so that he can\nsell the work for more than enough to take care of him to-morrow.\n\nI believe that no corporation should be allowed to exist except\nfor the benefit of the whole people. The Government should always\nact for the benefit of all, and when the Government gives a part\nof its power to an aggregation of individuals, the accomplishment\nof some public good should justify the giving of that power; and\nwhenever a corporation becomes subversive of the very end for which\nit was created, the Government should put an end to its life.\n\nSo I believe that after these matters, these issues have been\ndiscussed--when something is understood about the effect of a\ntariff, the effect of protection, the laboring people of this\ncountry will be on the side of the Republican party. The Republican\nparty is always trying to do something--trying to take a step in\nadvance. Persons who care for nothing except themselves--who wish\nto make no effort except for themselves--are its natural enemies.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of Mr. Mills' Fourth of July speech\non his bill?\n\n_Answer_. Certain allowances should always be made for the Fourth\nof July. What Mr. Mills says with regard to free trade depends,\nI imagine, largely on where he happens to be. You remember the\nold story about the _Moniteur_. When Napoleon escaped from Elba\nthat paper said: \"The ogre has escaped.\" And from that moment\nthe epithets grew a little less objectionable as Napoleon advanced,\nand at last the _Moniteur_ cried out: \"The Emperor has reached\nParis.\" I hardly believe that Mr. Mills would call his bill in\nTexas a war tariff measure. He might commence in New York with\nthat description, but as he went South that language, in my judgment,\nwould change, and when he struck the Brazos I think the bill would\nbe described as the nearest possible approach to free trade.\n\nMr. Mills takes the ground that if raw material comes here free of\nduty, then we can manufacture that raw material and compete with\nother countries in the markets of the world--that is to say, under\nhis bill. Now, other countries can certainly get the raw material\nas cheaply as we can, especially those countries in which the raw\nmaterial is raised; and if wages are less in other countries than\nin ours, the raw material being the same, the product must cost\nmore with us than with them. Consequently we cannot compete with\nforeign countries simply by getting the raw material at the same\nprice; we must be able to manufacture it as cheaply as they, and\nwe can do that only by cutting down the wages of the American\nworkingmen. Because, to have raw material at the same price as\nother nations, is only a part of the problem. The other part is\nhow cheaply can we manufacture it? And that depends upon wages.\nIf wages are twenty-five cents a day, then we can compete with\nthose nations where wages are twenty-five cents a day; but if our\nwages are five or six times as high, then the twenty-five cent\nlabor will supply the market. There is no possible way of putting\nourselves on an equality with other countries in the markets of\nthe world, except by putting American labor on an equality with\nthe other labor of the world. Consequently, we cannot obtain a\nforeign market without lessening our wages. No proposition can be\nplainer than this.\n\nIt cannot be said too often that the real prosperity of a country\ndepends upon the well-being of those who labor. That country is\nnot prosperous where a few are wealthy and have all the luxuries\nthat the imagination can suggest, and where the millions are in\nwant, clothed in rags, and housed in tenements not fit for wild\nbeasts. The value of our property depends on the civilization of\nour people. If the people are happy and contented, if the workingman\nreceives good wages, then our houses and our farms are valuable.\nIf the people are discontented, if the workingmen are in want, then\nour property depreciates from day to day, and national bankruptcy\nwill only be a question of time.\n\nIf Mr. Mills has given a true statement with regard to the measure\nproposed by him, what relation does that measure bear to the\nPresident's message? What has it to do with the Democratic platform?\nIf Mr. Mills has made no mistake, the President wrote a message\nsubstantially in favor of free trade. The Democratic party ratified\nand indorsed that message, and at the same time ratified and indorsed\nthe Mills bill. Now, the message was for free trade, and the Mills\nbill, according to Mr. Mills, is for the purpose of sustaining the\nwar tariff. They have either got the wrong child or the wrong\nparents.\n\n_Question_. I see that some people are objecting to your taking\nany part in politics, on account of your religious opinion?\n\n_Answer_. The Democratic party has always been pious. If it is\nnoted for anything it is for its extreme devotion. You have no\nidea how many Democrats wear out the toes of their shoes praying.\nI suppose that in this country there ought to be an absolute divorce\nbetween church and state and without any alimony being allowed to\nthe church; and I have always supposed that the Republican party\nwas perfectly willing that anybody should vote its ticket who\nbelieved in its principles. The party was not established, as I\nunderstand it, in the interest of any particular denomination; it\nwas established to promote and preserve the freedom of the American\ncitizen everywhere. Its first object was to prevent the spread of\nhuman slavery; its second object was to put down the Rebellion and\npreserve the Union; its third object was the utter destruction of\nhuman slavery everywhere, and its fourth object is to preserve not\nonly the fruit of all that it has won, but to protect American\nindustry to the end that the Republic may not only be free, but\nprosperous and happy. In this great work all are invited to join,\nno matter whether Catholics or Presbyterians or Methodists or\nInfidels--believers or unbelievers. The object is to have a majority\nof the people of the United States in favor of human liberty, in\nfavor of justice and in favor of an intelligent American policy.\n\nI am not what is called strictly orthodox, and yet I am liberal\nenough to vote for a Presbyterian, and if a Presbyterian is not\nliberal enough to stand by a Republican, no matter what his religious\nopinions may be, then the Presbyterian is not as liberal as the\nRepublican party, and he is not as liberal as an unbeliever; in\nother words, he is not a manly man.\n\nI object to no man who is running for office on the ticket of my\nparty on account of his religious convictions. I care nothing\nabout the church of which he is a member. That is his business.\nThat is an individual matter--something with which the State has\nno right to interfere--something with which no party can rightfully\nhave anything to do. These great questions are left open to\ndiscussion. Every church must take its chance in the open field\nof debate. No belief has the right to draw the sword--no dogma\nthe right to resort to force. The moment a church asks for the\nhelp of the State, it confesses its weakness, it confesses its\ninability to answer the arguments against it.\n\nI believe in the absolute equality before the law, of all religions\nand all metaphysical theories; and I would no more control those\nthings by law than I would endeavor to control the arts and the\nsciences by legislation. Man admires the beautiful, and what is\nbeautiful to one may not be to another, and this inequality or this\ndifference cannot be regulated by law.\n\nThe same is true of what is called religious belief. I am willing\nto give all others every right that I claim for myself, and if they\nare not willing to give me the rights they claim for themselves,\nthey are not civilized.\n\nNo man acknowledges the truth of my opinions because he votes the\nsame ticket that I do, and I certainly do not acknowledge the\ncorrectness of the opinions of others because I vote the Republican\nticket. We are Republicans together. Upon certain political\nquestions we agree, upon other questions we disagree--and that is\nall. Only religious people, who have made up their minds to vote\nthe Democratic ticket, will raise an objection of this kind, and\nthey will raise the objection simply as a pretence, simply for the\npurpose of muddying the water while they escape.\n\nOf course there may be some exceptions. There are a great many\ninsane people out of asylums. If the Republican party does not\nstand for absolute intellectual liberty, it had better disband.\nAnd why should we take so much pains to free the body, and then\nenslave the mind? I believe in giving liberty to both. Give every\nman the right to labor, and give him the right to reap the harvest\nof his toil. Give every man the right to think, and to reap the\nharvest of his brain--that is to say, give him the right to express\nhis thoughts.\n\n--_New York Press_, July 8, 1888.\n\n\nJAMES G. BLAINE AND POLITICS.\n\n_Question_. I see that there has lately been published a long\naccount of the relations between Mr. Blaine and yourself, and the\nreason given for your failure to support him for the nomination in\n1884 and 1888?\n\n_Answer_. Every little while some donkey writes a long article\npretending to tell all that happened between Mr. Blaine and myself.\nI have never seen any article on the subject that contained any\ntruth. They are always the invention of the writer or of somebody\nwho told him. The last account is more than usually idiotic. An\nunpleasant word has never passed between Mr. Blaine and myself.\nWe have never had any falling out. I never asked Mr. Blaine's\ninfluence for myself. I never asked President Hayes or Garfield\nor Arthur for any position whatever, and I have never asked Mr.\nCleveland for any appointment under the civil service.\n\nWith regard to the German Mission, about which so much has been\nsaid, all that I ever did in regard to that was to call on Secretary\nEvarts and inform him that there was no place in the gift of the\nadministration that I would accept. I could not afford to throw\naway a good many thousand dollars a year for the sake of an office.\nSo I say again that I never asked, or dreamed of asking, any such\nfavor of Mr. Blaine. The favors have been exactly the other way--\nfrom me, and not from him. So there is not the slightest truth in\nthe charge that there was some difference between our families.\n\nI have great respect for Mrs. Blaine, have always considered her\nan extremely good and sensible woman; our relations have been of\nthe friendliest character, and such relations have always existed\nbetween all the members of both families, so far as I know. Nothing\ncould be more absurd that the charge that there was some feeling\ngrowing out of our social relations. We do not depend upon others\nto help us socially; we need no help, and if we did we would not\naccept it. The whole story about there having been any lack of\npoliteness or kindness is without the slightest foundation.\n\nIn 1884 I did not think that Mr. Blaine could be elected. I thought\nthe same at the Chicago convention this year. I know that he has\na great number of ardent admirers and of exceedingly self-denying\nand unselfish friends. I believe that he has more friends than\nany other man in the Republican party; but he also has very bitter\nenemies--enemies with influence. Taking this into consideration,\nand believing that the success of the party was more important than\nthe success of any individual, I was in favor of nominating some\nman who would poll the entire Republican vote. This feeling did\nnot grow out of any hostility to any man, but simply out of a desire\nfor Republican success. In other words, I endeavored to take an\nunprejudiced view of the situation. Under no circumstances would\nI underrate the ability and influence of Mr. Blaine, nor would I\nendeavor to deprecate the services he has rendered to the Republican\nparty and to the country. But by this time it ought to be understood\nthat I belong to no man, that I am the proprietor of myself.\n\nThere are two kinds of people that I have no use for--leaders and\nfollowers. The leader should be principle; the leader should be\na great object to be accomplished. The follower should be the man\ndedicated to the accomplishment of a noble end. He who simply\nfollows persons gains no honor and is incapable of giving honor\neven to the one he follows. There are certain things to be\naccomplished and these things are the leaders. We want in this\ncountry an American system; we wish to carry into operation, into\npractical effect, ideas, policies, theories in harmony with our\nsurroundings.\n\nThis is a great country filled with intelligent, industrious,\nrestless, ambitious people. Millions came here because they were\ndissatisfied with the laws, the institutions, the tyrannies, the\nabsurdities, the poverty, the wretchedness and the infamous spirit\nof caste found in the Old World. Millions of these people are\nthinking for themselves, and only the people who can teach, who\ncan give new facts, who can illuminate, should be regarded as\npolitical benefactors. This country is, in my judgment, in all\nthat constitutes true greatness, the nearest civilized of any\ncountry. Only yesterday the German Empire robbed a woman of her\nchild; this was done as a political necessity. Nothing is taken\ninto consideration except some move on the political chess-board.\nThe feelings of a mother are utterly disregarded; they are left\nout of the question; they are not even passed upon. They are\nnaturally ignored, because in these governments only the unnatural\nis natural.\n\nIn our political life we have substantially outgrown the duel.\nThere are some small, insignificant people who still think it\nimportant to defend a worthless reputation on the field of \"honor,\"\nbut for respectable members of the Senate, of the House, of the\nCabinet, to settle a political argument with pistols would render\nthem utterly contemptible in this country; that is to say, the\nopinion that governs, that dominates in this country, holds the\nduel in abhorrence and in contempt. What could be more idiotic,\nabsurd, childish, than the duel between Boulanger and Floquet?\nWhat was settled? It needed no duel to convince the world that\nFloquet is a man of courage. The same may be said of Boulanger.\nHe has faced death upon many fields. Why, then, resort to the\nduel? If Boulanger's wound proves fatal, that certainly does not\ntend to prove that Floquet told the truth, and if Boulanger recovers,\nit does not tend to prove that he did not tell the truth.\n\nNothing is settled. Two men controlled by vanity, that individual\nvanity born of national vanity, try to kill each other; the public\nready to reward the victor; the cause of the quarrel utterly ignored;\nthe hands of the public ready to applaud the successful swordsman\n--and yet France is called a civilized nation. No matter how\nserious the political situation may be, no matter if everything\ndepends upon one man, that man is at the mercy of anyone in opposition\nwho may see fit to challenge him. The greatest general at the head\nof their armies may be forced to fight a duel with a nobody. Such\nideas, such a system, keeps a nation in peril and makes every cause,\nto a greater or less extent, depend upon the sword or the bullet\nof a criminal.\n\n--_The Press_, New York, July 16, 1888.\n\n\nTHE MILLS BILL.\n\n_Question_. What, in your opinion, is the significance of the vote\non the Mills Bill recently passed in the House? In this I find\nthere were one hundred and sixty-two for it, and one hundred and\nforty-nine against it; of these, two Republicans voted for, and\nfive Democrats against.\n\n_Answer_. In the first place, I think it somewhat doubtful whether\nthe bill could have been passed if Mr. Randall had been well. His\nsickness had much to do with this vote. Had he been present to\nhave taken care of his side, to have kept his forces in hand, he,\nin my judgment, taking into consideration his wonderful knowledge\nof parliamentary tactics, would have defeated this bill.\n\nIt is somewhat hard to get the average Democrat, in the absence of\nhis leader, to throw away the prospect of patronage. Most members\nof Congress have to pay tolerably strict attention to their political\nfences. The President, although clinging with great tenacity to\nthe phrase \"civil service,\" has in all probability pulled every\nstring he could reach for the purpose of compelling the Democratic\nmembers not only to stand in line, but to answer promptly to their\nnames. Every Democrat who has shown independence has been stepped\non just to the extent he could be reached; but many members, had\nthe leader been on the floor--and a leader like Randall--would have\nfollowed him.\n\nThere are very few congressional districts in the United States not\nintensely Democratic where the people want nothing protected.\nThere are a few districts where nothing grows except ancient\npolitics, where they cultivate only the memory of what never ought\nto have been, where the subject of protection has not yet reached.\n\nThe impudence requisite to pass the Mills Bill is something\nphenomenal. Think of the Representatives from Louisiana saying to\nthe ranchmen of the West and to the farmers of Ohio that wool must\nbe on the free list, but that for the sake of preserving the sugar\ninterest of Louisiana and a little portion of Texas, all the rest\nof the United States must pay tribute.\n\nEverybody admits that Louisiana is not very well adapted by nature\nfor raising sugar, for the reason that the cane has to be planted\nevery year, and every third year the frost puts in an appearance\njust a little before the sugar. Now, while I think personally that\nthe tariff on sugar has stimulated the inventive genius of the\ncountry to find other ways of producing that which is universally\nneeded; and while I believe that it will not be long until we shall\nproduce every pound of sugar that we consume, and produce it cheaper\nthan we buy it now, I am satisfied that in time and at no distant\nday sugar will be made in this country extremely cheap, not only\nfrom beets, but from sorghum and corn, and it may be from other\nproducts. At the same time this is no excuse for Louisiana, neither\nis it any excuse for South Carolina asking for a tariff on rice,\nand at the same time wishing to leave some other industry in the\nUnited States, in which many more millions have been invested,\nabsolutely without protection.\n\nUnderstand, I am not opposed to a reasonable tariff on rice, provided\nit is shown that we can raise rice in this country cheaply and at\na profit to such an extent as finally to become substantially\nindependent of the rest of the world. What I object to is the\nimpudence of the gentleman who is raising the rice objecting to\nthe protection of some other industry of far greater importance\nthan his.\n\nAfter all, the whole thing must be a compromise. We must act\ntogether for the common good. If we wish to make something at the\nexpense of another State we must allow that State to make something\nat our expense, or at least we must be able to show that while it\nis for our benefit it is also for the benefit of the country at\nlarge. Everybody is entitled to have his own way up to the point\nthat his way interferes with somebody else. States are like\nindividuals--their rights are relative--they are subordinated to\nthe good of the whole country.\n\nFor many years it has been the American policy to do all that\nreasonably could be done to foster American industry, to give scope\nto American ingenuity and a field for American enterprise--in other\nwords, a future for the United States.\n\nThe Southern States were always in favor of something like free\ntrade. They wanted to raise cotton for Great Britain--raw material\nfor other countries. At that time their labor was slave labor,\nand they could not hope ever to have skilled labor, because skilled\nlabor cannot be enslaved. The Southern people knew at that time\nthat if a man was taught enough of mathematics to understand\nmachinery, to run locomotives, to weave cloth; it he was taught\nenough of chemistry even to color calico, it would be impossible\nto keep him a slave. Education always was and always will be an\nabolitionist. The South advocated a system of harmony with slavery,\nin harmony with ignorance--that is to say, a system of free trade,\nunder which it might raise its raw material. It could not hope to\nmanufacture, because by making its labor intelligent enough to\nmanufacture it would lose it.\n\nIn the North, men are working for themselves, and as I have often\nsaid, they were getting their hands and heads in partnership.\nEvery little stream that went singing to the sea was made to turn\na thousand wheels; the water became a spinner and a weaver; the\nwater became a blacksmith and ran a trip hammer; the water was\ndoing the work of millions of men. In other words, the free people\nof the North were doing what free people have always done, going\ninto partnership with the forces of nature. Free people want good\ntools, shapely, well made--tools with which the most work can be\ndone with the least strain.\n\nSuppose the South had been in favor of protection; suppose that\nall over the Southern country there had been workshops, factories,\nmachines of every kind; suppose that her people had been as ingenious\nas the people of the North; suppose that her hands had been as deft\nas those that had been accustomed to skilled labor; then one of\ntwo things would have happened; either the South would have been\ntoo intelligent to withdraw from the Union, or, having withdrawn,\nit would have had the power to maintain its position. My opinion\nis that is would have been too intelligent to withdraw.\n\nWhen the South seceded it had no factories. The people of the\nSouth had ability, but it was not trained in the direction then\nnecessary. They could not arm and equip their men; they could not\nmake their clothes; they could not provide them with guns, with\ncannon, with ammunition, and with the countless implements of\ndestruction. They had not the ingenuity; they had not the means;\nthey could not make cars to carry their troops, or locomotives to\ndraw them; they had not in their armies the men to build bridges\nor to supply the needed transportation. They had nothing but cotton\n--that is to say, raw material. So that you might say that the\nRebellion has settled the question as to whether a country is better\noff and more prosperous, and more powerful, and more ready for war,\nthat is filled with industries, or one that depends simply upon\nthe production of raw material.\n\nThere is another thing in this connection that should never be\nforgotten--at least, not until after the election in November, and\nthen if forgotten, should be remembered at every subsequent election\n--and that is, that the Southern Confederacy had in its Constitution\nthe doctrine of free trade. Among other things it was fighting\nfor free trade. As a matter of fact, John C. Calhoun was fighting\nfor free trade; the nullification business was in the interest of\nfree trade.\n\nThe Southern people are endeavoring simply to accomplish, with the\naid of New York, what they failed to accomplish on the field. The\nSouth is as \"solid\" to-day as in 1863. It is now for free trade,\nand it purposes to carry the day by the aid of one or two Northern\nStates. History is repeating itself. It was the same for many\nyears, up to the election of Abraham Lincoln.\n\nUnderstand me, I do not blame the South for acting in accordance\nwith its convictions, but the North ought not to be misled. The\nNorth ought to understand what the issue is. The South has a\ndifferent idea of government--it is afraid of what it calls\n\"centralization\"--it is extremely sensitive about what are called\n\"State Rights\" or the sovereignty of the State. But the North\nbelieves in a Union that is united. The North does not expect to\nhave any interest antagonistic to the Union. The North has no\nmental reservation. The North believes in the Government and in\nthe Federal system, and the North believes that when a State is\nadmitted into the Union it becomes a part--an integral part--of\nthe Nation; that there was a welding, that the State, so far as\nsovereignty is concerned, is lost in the Union, and that the people\nof that State become citizens of the whole country.\n\n_Question_. I see that by the vote two of the five Democrats who\nvoted for protection, and one of the two Republicans who voted for\nfree trade, were New Yorkers. What do you think is the significance\nof this fact in relation to the question as to whether New York\nwill join the South in the opposition to the industries of the\ncountry?\n\n_Answer_. In the city of New York there are a vast number of men\n--importers, dealers in foreign articles, representatives of foreign\nhouses, of foreign interests, of foreign ideas. Of course most of\nthese people are in favor of free trade. They regard New York as\na good market; beyond that they have not the slightest interest in\nthe United States. They are in favor of anything that will give\nthem a large profit, or that will allow them to do the same business\nwith less capital, or that will do them any good without the\nslightest regard as to what the effect may be on this country as\na nation. They come from all countries, and they expect to remain\nhere until their fortunes are made or lost and all their ideas are\nmoulded by their own interests. Then, there are a great many\nnatives who are merchants in New York and who deal in foreign goods,\nand they probably think--some of them--that it would be to their\ninterest to have free trade, and they will probably vote according\nto the ledger. With them it is a question of bookkeeping. Their\ngreed is too great to appreciate the fact that to impoverish\ncustomers destroys trade.\n\nAt the same time, New York, being one of the greatest manufacturing\nStates of the world, will be for protection, and the Democrats of\nNew York who voted for protection did so, not only because the\nbelieved in it themselves, but because their constituents believe\nin it, and the Republicans who voted the other way must have\nrepresented some district where the foreign influence controls.\n\nThe people of this State will protect their own industries.\n\n_Question_. What will be the fate of the Mills Bill in the Senate?\n\n_Answer_. I think that unless the Senate has a bill prepared\nembodying Republican ideals, a committee should be appointed, not\nsimply to examine the Mills Bill, but to get the opinions and the\nideas of the most intelligent manufacturers and mechanics in this\ncountry. Let the questions be thoroughly discussed, and let the\ninformation thus obtained be given to the people; let it be published\nfrom day to day; let the laboring man have his say, let the\nmanufacturer give his opinion; let the representatives of the\nprincipal industries be heard, so that we may vote intelligently,\nso that the people may know what they are doing.\n\nA great many industries have been attacked. Let them defend\nthemselves. Public property should not be taken for Democratic\nuse without due process of law.\n\nCertainly it is not the business of a Republican Senate to pull\nthe donkey of the Democrats out of the pit; the dug the pit, and\nwe have lost no donkey.\n\nI do not think the Senate called upon to fix up this Mills Bill,\nto rectify its most glaring mistakes, and then for the sake of\nsaving a little, give up a great deal. What we have got is safe\nuntil the Democrats have the power to pass a bill. We can protect\nour rights by not passing their bills. In other words, we do not\nwish to practice any great self-denial simply for the purpose of\ninsuring Democratic success. If the bill is sent back to the House,\nno matter in what form, if it still has the name \"Mills Bill\" I\nthink the Democrats will vote for it simply to get out of their\ntrouble. They will have the President's message left.\n\nBut I do hope that the Senate will investigate this business. It\nis hardly fair to ask the Senate to take decided and final action\nupon this bill in the last days of the session. There is no time\nto consider it unless it is instantly defeated. This would probably\nbe a safe course, and yet, by accident, there may be some good\nthings in this bill that ought to be preserved, and certainly the\nDemocratic party ought to regard it as a compliment to keep it long\nenough to read it.\n\nThe interests involved are great--there are the commercial and\nindustrial interests of sixty millions of people. These questions\ntouch the prosperity of the Republic. Every person under the flag\nhas a direct interest in the solution of these questions. The end\nthat is now arrived at, the policy now adopted, may and probably\nwill last for many years. One can hardly overestimate the immensity\nof the interests at stake. A man dealing with his own affairs\nshould take time to consider; he should give himself the benefit\nof his best judgment. When acting for others he should do no less.\nThe Senators represent, or should represent, not only their own\nviews, but above these things they represent the material interests\nof their constituents, of their States, and to this trust they must\nbe true, and in order to be true, they must understand the material\ninterests of their States, and in order to be faithful, they must\nunderstand how the proposed changes in the tariff will affect these\ninterests. This cannot be done in a moment.\n\nIn my judgment, the best way is for the Senate, through the proper\ncommittee, to hear testimony, to hear the views of intelligent men,\nof interested men, of prejudiced men--that is to say, they should\nlook at the question from all sides.\n\n_Question_. The Senate is almost tied; do you think that any\nRepublicans are likely to vote in the interest of the President's\npolicy at this session?\n\n_Answer_. Of course I cannot pretend to answer that question from\nany special knowledge, or on any information that others are not\nin possession of. My idea is simply this: That a majority of the\nSenators are opposed to the President's policy. A majority of the\nSenate will, in my judgment, sustain the Republican policy; that\nis to say, they will stand by the American system. A majority of\nthe Senate, I think, know that it will be impossible for us to\ncompete in the markets of the world with those nations in which\nlabor is far cheaper than it is in the United States, and that when\nyou make the raw material just the same, you have not overcome the\ndifference in labor, and until this is overcome we cannot successfully\ncompete in the markets of the world with those countries where\nlabor is cheaper. And there are only two ways to overcome this\ndifficulty--either the price of labor must go up in the other\ncountries or must go down in this. I do not believe that a majority\nof the Senate can be induced to vote for a policy that will decrease\nthe wages of American workingmen.\n\nThere is this curious thing: The President started out blowing\nthe trumpet of free trade. It gave, as the Democrats used to say,\n\"no uncertain sound.\" He blew with all his might. Messrs. Morrison,\nCarlisle, Mills and many others joined the band. When the Mills\nBill was introduced it was heralded as the legitimate offspring of\nthe President's message. When the Democratic convention at St.\nLouis met, the declaration was made that the President's message,\nthe Mills Bill, the Democratic platform of 1884 and the Democratic\nplatform of 1888, were all the same--all segments of one circle;\nin fact, they were like modern locomotives--\"all the parts\ninterchangeable.\" As soon as the Republican convention met, made\nits platform and named its candidates, it is not free trade, but\nfreer trade; and now Mr. Mills, in the last speech that he was\npermitted to make in favor of his bill, endeavored to show that it\nwas a high protective tariff measure.\n\nThis is what lawyers call \"a departure in pleading.\" That is to\nsay, it is a case that ought to be beaten on demurrer.\n\n--_New York Press_, July 29, 1888.\n\n\nSOCIETY AND ITS CRIMINALS*\n\n[* Col. Robert G. Ingersoll was greatly interested in securing for\nChiara Cignarale a commutation of the death sentence to imprisonment\nfor life. In view of the fact that the great Agnostic has made a\nclose study of capital punishment, a reporter for the _World_ called\nupon him a day or two ago for an interview touching modern reformatory\nmeasures and the punishment of criminals. Speaking generally on the\nsubject Colonel Ingersoll said: ]\n\nI suppose that society--that is to say, a state or a nation--has\nthe right of self-defence. It is impossible to maintain society--\nthat is to say, to protect the rights of individuals in life, in\nproperty, in reputation, and in the various pursuits known as trades\nand professions, without in some way taking care of those who\nviolate these rights. The principal object of all government should\nbe to protect those in the right from those in the wrong. There\nare a vast number of people who need to be protected who are unable,\nby reason of the defects in their minds and by the countless\ncircumstances that enter into the question of making a living, to\nprotect themselves. Among the barbarians there was, comparatively\nspeaking, but little difference. A living was made by fishing and\nhunting. These arts were simple and easily learned. The principal\ndifference in barbarians consisted in physical strength and courage.\nAs a consequence, there were comparatively few failures. Most men\nwere on an equality. Now that we are somewhat civilized, life has\nbecome wonderfully complex. There are hundreds of arts, trades,\nand professions, and in every one of these there is great\ncompetition.\n\nBesides all this, something is needed every moment. Civilized man\nhas less credit than the barbarian. There is something by which\neverything can be paid for, including the smallest services.\nEverybody demands payment, and he who fails to pay is a failure.\nOwing to the competition, owing to the complexity of modern life,\nowing to the thousand things that must be known in order to succeed\nin any direction, on either side of the great highway that is called\nProgress, are innumerable wrecks. As a rule, failure in some honest\ndirection, or at least in some useful employment, is the dawn of\ncrime. People who are prosperous, people who by reasonable labor\ncan make a reasonable living, who, having a little leisure can lay\nin a little for the winter that comes to all, are honest.\n\nAs a rule, reasonable prosperity is virtuous. I don't say great\nprosperity, because it is very hard for the average man to withstand\nextremes. When people fail under this law, or rather this fact,\nof the survival of the fittest, they endeavor to do by some illegal\nway that which they failed to do in accordance with law. Persons\ndriven from the highway take to the fields, and endeavor to reach\ntheir end or object in some shorter way, by some quicker path,\nregardless of its being right or wrong.\n\nI have said this much to show that I regard criminals as unfortunates.\nMost people regard those who violate the law with hatred. They do\nnot take into consideration the circumstances. They do not believe\nthat man is perpetually acted upon. They throw out of consideration\nthe effect of poverty, of necessity, and above all, of opportunity.\nFor these reasons they regard criminals with feelings of revenge.\nThey wish to see them punished. They want them imprisoned or\nhanged. They do not think the law has been vindicated unless\nsomebody has been outraged. I look at these things from an entirely\ndifferent point of view. I regard these people who are in the\nclutches of the law not only as unfortunates, but, for the most\npart, as victims. You may call them victims of nature, or of\nnations, or of governments; it makes no difference, they are victims.\nUnder the same circumstances the very persons who punish them would\nbe punished. But whether the criminal is a victim or not, the\nhonest man, the industrious man, has the right to defend the product\nof his labor. He who sows and plows should be allowed to reap,\nand he who endeavors to take from him his harvest is what we call\na criminal; and it is the business of society to protect the honest\nfrom the dishonest.\n\nWithout taking into account whether the man is or is not responsible,\nstill society has the right of self-defence. Whether that right\nof self-defence goes to the extent of taking life, depends, I\nimagine, upon the circumstances in which society finds itself\nplaced. A thousand men on a ship form a society. If a few men\nshould enter into a plot for the destruction of the ship, or for\nturning it over to pirates, or for poisoning and plundering the\nmost of the passengers--if the passengers found this out certainly\nthey would have the right of self-defence. They might not have\nthe means to confine the conspirators with safety. Under such\ncircumstances it might be perfectly proper for them to destroy\ntheir lives and to throw their worthless bodies into the sea. But\nwhat society has the right to do depends upon the circumstances.\nNow, in my judgment, society has the right to do two things--to\nprotect itself and to do what it can to reform the individual.\nSociety has no right to take revenge; no right to torture a convict;\nno right to do wrong because some individual has done wrong. I am\nopposed to all corporal punishment in penitentiaries. I am opposed\nto anything that degrades a criminal or leaves upon him an unnecessary\nstain, or puts upon him any stain that he did not put upon himself.\n\nMost people defend capital punishment on the ground that the man\nought to be killed because he has killed another. The only real\nground for killing him, even if that be good, is not that he has\nkilled, but that he may kill. What he has done simply gives evidence\nof what he may do, and to prevent what he may do, instead of to\nrevenge what he has done, should be the reason given.\n\nNow, there is another view. To what extent does it harden the\ncommunity for the Government to take life? Don't people reason in\nthis way: That man ought to be killed; the Government, under the\nsame circumstances, would kill him, therefore I will kill him?\nDoes not the Government feed the mob spirit--the lynch spirit?\nDoes not the mob follow the example set by the Government? The\nGovernment certainly cannot say that it hangs a man for the purpose\nof reforming him. Its feelings toward that man are only feelings\nof revenge and hatred. These are the same feelings that animate\nthe lowest and basest mob.\n\nLet me give you an example. In the city of Bloomington, in the\nState of Illinois, a man confined in the jail, in his efforts to\nescape, shot and, I believe, killed the jailer. He was pursued,\nrecaptured, brought back and hanged by a mob. The man who put the\nrope around his neck was then under indictment for an assault to\nkill and was out on bail, and after the poor wretch was hanged\nanother man climbed the tree and, in a kind of derision, put a\npiece of cigar between the lips of the dead man. The man who did\nthis had also been indicted for a penitentiary offence and was then\nout on bail.\n\nI mention this simply to show the kind of people you find in mobs.\nNow, if the Government had a greater and nobler thought; if the\nGovernment said: \"We will reform; we will not destroy; but if the\nman is beyond reformation we will simply put him where he can do\nno more harm,\" then, in my judgment, the effect would be far better.\nMy own opinion is, that the effect of an execution is bad upon the\ncommunity--degrading and debasing. The effect is to cheapen human\nlife; and, although a man is hanged because he has taken human\nlife, the very fact that his life is taken by the Government tends\nto do away with the idea that human life is sacred.\n\nLet me give you an illustration. A man in the city of Washington\nwent to Alexandria, Va., for the purpose of seeing a man hanged\nwho had murdered an old man and a woman for the purpose of getting\ntheir money. On his return from that execution he came through\nwhat is called the Smithsonian grounds. This was on the same day,\nlate in the evening. There he met a peddler, whom he proceeded to\nmurder for his money. He was arrested in a few hours, in a little\nwhile was tried and convicted, and in a little while was hanged.\nAnd another man, present at this second execution, went home on\nthat same day, and, in passing by a butcher-shop near his house,\nwent in, took from the shop a cleaver, went into his house and\nchopped his wife's head off.\n\nThis, I say, throws a little light upon the effect of public\nexecutions. In the Cignarale case, of course the sentence should\nhave been commuted. I think, however, that she ought not to be\nimprisoned for life. From what I read of the testimony I think\nshe should have been pardoned.\n\nIt is hard, I suppose, for a man fully to understand and enter into\nthe feelings of a wife who has been trampled upon, abused, bruised,\nand blackened by the man she loved--by the man who made to her the\nvows of eternal affection. The woman, as a rule, is so weak, so\nhelpless. Of course, it does not all happen in a moment. It comes\non as the night comes. She notices that he does not act quite as\naffectionately as he formerly did. Day after day, month after\nmonth, she feels that she is entering a twilight. But she hopes\nthat she is mistaken, and that the light will come again. The\ngloom deepens, and at last she is in midnight--a midnight without\na star. And this man, whom she once worshiped, is now her enemy--\none who delights to trample upon every sentiment she has--who\ndelights in humiliating her, and who is guilty of a thousand nameless\ntyrannies. Under these circumstances, it is hardly right to hold\nthat woman accountable for what she does. It has always seemed to\nme strange that a woman so circumstanced--in such fear that she\ndare not even tell her trouble--in such fear that she dare not even\nrun away--dare not tell a father or a mother, for fear that she\nwill be killed--I say, that in view of all this, it has always\nseemed strange to me that so few husbands have been poisoned.\n\nThe probability is that society raises its own criminals. It plows\nthe land, sows the seed, and harvests the crop. I believe that\nthe shadow of the gibbet will not always fall upon the earth. I\nbelieve the time will come when we shall know too much to raise\ncriminals--know too much to crowd those that labor into the dens\nand dungeons that we call tenements, while the idle live in palaces.\nThe time will come when men will know that real progress means the\nenfranchisement of the whole human race, and that our interests\nare so united, so interwoven, that the few cannot be happy while\nthe many suffer; so that the many cannot be happy while the few\nsuffer; so that none can be happy while one suffers. In other\nwords, it will be found that the human race is interested in each\nindividual. When that time comes we will stop producing criminals;\nwe will stop producing failures; we will not leave the next generation\nto chance; we will not regard the gutter as a proper nursery for\nposterity.\n\nPeople imagine that if the thieves are sent to the penitentiary,\nthat is the last of the thieves; that if those who kill others are\nhanged, society is on a safe and enduring basis. But the trouble\nis here: A man comes to your front door and you drive him away.\nYou have an idea that that man's case is settled. You are mistaken.\nHe goes to the back door. He is again driven away. But the case\nis not settled. The next thing you know he enters at night. He\nis a burglar. He is caught; he is convicted; he is sent to the\npenitentiary, and you imagine that the case is settled. But it is\nnot. You must remember that you have to keep all the agencies\nalive for the purpose of taking care of these people. You have to\nbuild and maintain your penitentiaries, your courts of justice;\nyou have to pay your judges, your district attorneys, your juries,\nyou witnesses, your detectives, your police--all these people must\nbe paid. So that, after all, it is a very expensive way of settling\nthis question. You could have done it far more cheaply had you\nfound this burglar when he was a child; had you taken his father\nand mother from the tenement house, or had you compelled the owners\nto keep the tenement clean; or if you had widened the streets, if\nyou had planted a few trees, if you had had plenty of baths, if\nyou had had a school in the neighborhood. If you had taken some\ninterest in this family--some interest in this child--instead of\nbreaking into houses, he might have been a builder of houses.\n\nThere is, and it cannot be said too often, no reforming influence\nin punishment; no reforming power in revenge. Only the best of\nmen should be in charge of penitentiaries; only the noblest minds\nand the tenderest hearts should have the care of criminals.\nCriminals should see from the first moment that they enter a\npenitentiary that it is filled with the air of kindness, full of\nthe light of hope. The object should be to convince every criminal\nthat he has made a mistake; that he has taken the wrong way; that\nthe right way is the easy way, and that the path of crime never\ndid and never can lead to happiness; that that idea is a mistake,\nand that the Government wishes to convince him that he has made a\nmistake; wishes to open his intellectual eyes; wishes so to educate\nhim, so to elevate him, that he will look back upon what he has\ndone, only with horror. This is reformation. Punishment is not.\nWhen the convict is taken to Sing Sing or to Auburn, and when a\nstriped suit of clothes is put upon him--that is to say, when he\nis made to feel the degradation of his position--no step has been\ntaken toward reformation. You have simply filled his heart with\nhatred. Then, when he has been abused for several years, treated\nlike a wild beast, and finally turned out again in the community,\nhe has no thought, in a majority of cases, except to \"get even\"\nwith those who have persecuted him. He feels that it is a\npersecution.\n\n_Question_. Do you think that men are naturally criminals and\nnaturally virtuous?\n\n_Answer_. I think that man does all that he does naturally--that\nis to say, a certain man does a certain act under certain circumstances,\nand he does this naturally. For instance, a man sees a five dollar\nbill, and he knows that he can take it without being seen. Five\ndollars is no temptation to him. Under the circumstances it is\nnot natural that he should take it. The same man sees five million\ndollars, and feels that he can get possession of it without detection.\nIf he takes it, then under the circumstances, that was natural to\nhim. And yet I believe there are men above all price, and that no\namount of temptation or glory or fame could mislead them. Still,\nwhatever man does, is or was natural to him.\n\nAnother view of the subject is this: I have read that out of fifty\ncriminals who had been executed it was found, I believe, in nearly\nall the cases, that the shape of the skull was abnormal. Whether\nthis is true or not, I don't know; but that some men have a tendency\ntoward what we call crime, I believe. Where this has been ascertained,\nthen, it seems to me, such men should be placed where they cannot\nmultiply their kind. Women who have a criminal tendency should be\nplaced where they cannot increase their kind. For hardened criminals\n--that is to say, for the people who make crime a business--it\nwould probably be better to separate the sexes; to send the men to\none island, the women to another. Let them be kept apart, to the\nend that people with criminal tendencies may fade from the earth.\nThis is not prompted by revenge. This would not be done for the\npurpose of punishing these people, but for the protection of society\n--for the peace and happiness of the future.\n\nMy own belief is that the system in vogue now in regard to the\ntreatment of criminals in many States produces more crime than it\nprevents. Take, for instance, the Southern States. There is hardly\na chapter in the history of the world the reading of which could\nproduce greater indignation than the history of the convict system\nin many of the Southern States. These convicts are hired out for\nthe purpose of building railways, or plowing fields, or digging\ncoal, and in some instances the death-rate has been over twelve\nper cent. a month. The evidence shows that no respect was paid to\nthe sexes--men and women were chained together indiscriminately.\nThe evidence also shows that for the slightest offences they were\nshot down like beasts. They were pursued by hounds, and their\nflesh was torn from their bones.\n\nSo in some of the Northern prisons they have what they call the\nweighing machine--an infamous thing, and he who uses it commits as\ngreat a crime as the convict he punishes could have committed.\nAll these things are degrading, debasing, and demoralizing. There\nis no need of any such punishment in any penitentiary. Let the\npunishment be of such kind that the convict is responsible himself.\nFor instance, if the convict refuses to obey a reasonable rule he\ncan be put into a cell. He can be fed when he obeys the rule.\n\nIf he goes hungry it is his own fault. It depends upon himself to\nsay when he shall eat. Or he may be placed in such a position that\nif he does not work--if he does not pump--the water will rise and\ndrown him. If the water does rise it is his fault. Nobody pours\nit upon him. He takes his choice.\n\nThese are suggested as desperate cases, but I can imagine no case\nwhere what is called corporal punishment should be inflicted, and\nthe reason I am against it is this: I am opposed to any punishment\nthat cannot be inflicted by a gentleman. I am opposed to any\npunishment the infliction of which tends to harden and debase the\nman who inflicts it. I am for no laws that have to be carried out\nby human curs.\n\nTake, for instance, the whipping-post. Nothing can be more degrading.\nThe man who applies the lash is necessarily a cruel and vulgar man,\nand the oftener he applies it the more and more debased he will\nbecome. The whole thing can be stated in the one sentence: I am\nopposed to any punishment that cannot be inflicted by a gentleman,\nand by \"gentleman\" I mean a self-respecting, honest, generous man.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the efficacy or the propriety of\npunishing criminals by solitary confinement?\n\n_Answer_. Solitary confinement is a species of torture. I am\nopposed to all torture. I think the criminal should not be punished.\nHe should be reformed, if he is capable of reformation. But,\nwhatever is done, it should not be done as a punishment. Society\nshould be too noble, too generous, to harbor a thought of revenge.\nSociety should not punish, it should protect itself only. It should\nendeavor to reform the individual. Now, solitary confinement does\nnot, I imagine, tend to the reformation of the individual. Neither\ncan the person in that position do good to any human being. The\nprisoner will be altogether happier when his mind is engaged, when\nhis hands are busy, when he has something to do. This keeps alive\nwhat we call cheerfulness. And let me say a word on this point.\n\nI don't believe that the State ought to steal the labor of a convict.\nHere is a man who has a family. He is sent to the penitentiary.\nHe works from morning till night. Now, in my judgment, he ought\nto be paid for the labor over and above what it costs to keep him.\nThat money should be sent to his family. That money should be\nsubject, at least, to his direction. If he is a single man, when\nhe comes out of the penitentiary he should be given his earnings,\nand all his earnings, so that he would not have the feeling that\nhe had been robbed. A statement should be given to him to show what\nit had cost to keep him and how much his labor had brought and the\nbalance remaining in his favor. With this little balance he could\ngo out into the world with something like independence. This little\nbalance would be a foundation for his honesty--a foundation for a\nresolution on his part to be a man. But now each one goes out with\nthe feeling that he has not only been punished for the crime which\nhe committed, but that he has been robbed of the results of his\nlabor while there.\n\nThe idea is simply preposterous that the people sent to the\npenitentiary should live in idleness. They should have the benefit\nof their labor, and if you give them the benefit of their labor\nthey will turn out as good work as if they were out of the\npenitentiary. They will have the same reason to do their best.\nConsequently, poor articles, poorly constructed things, would not\ncome into competition with good articles made by free people outside\nof the walls.\n\nNow many mechanics are complaining because work done in the\npenitentiaries is brought into competition with their work. But\nthe only reason that convict work is cheaper is because the poor\nwretch who does it is robbed. The only reason that the work is\npoor is because the man who does it has no interest in its being\ngood. If he had the profit of his own labor he would do the best\nthat was in him, and the consequence would be that the wares\nmanufactured in the prisons would be as good as those manufactured\nelsewhere. For instance, we will say here are three or four men\nworking together. They are all free men. One commits a crime and\nhe is sent to the penitentiary. Is it possible that his companions\nwould object to his being paid for honest work in the penitentiary?\n\nAnd let me say right here, all labor is honest. Whoever makes a\nuseful thing, the labor is honest, no matter whether the work is\ndone in a penitentiary or in a palace; in a hovel or the open field.\nWherever work is done for the good of others, it is honest work.\nIf the laboring men would stop and think, they would know that they\nsupport everybody. Labor pays all the taxes. Labor supports all\nthe penitentiaries. Labor pays the warden. Labor pays everything,\nand if the convicts are allowed to live in idleness labor must pay\ntheir board. Every cent of tax is borne by the back of labor. No\nmatter whether your tariff is put on champagne and diamonds, it\nhas to be paid by the men and women who work--those who plow in\nthe fields, who wash and iron, who stand by the forge, who run the\ncars and work in the mines, and by those who battle with the waves\nof the sea. Labor pays every bill.\n\nThere is one little thing to which I wish to call the attention of\nall who happen to read this interview, and that is this: Undoubtedly\nyou think of all criminals with horror and when you hear about them\nyou are, in all probability, filled with virtuous indignation.\nBut, first of all, I want you to think of what you have in fact\ndone. Secondly, I want you to think of what you have wanted to\ndo. Thirdly, I want you to reflect whether you were prevented from\ndoing what you wanted to do by fear or by lack of opportunity.\nThen perhaps you will have more charity.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the new legislation in the State\nchanging the death penalty to death by electricity?\n\n_Answer_. If death by electricity is less painful than hanging,\nthen the law, so far as that goes, is good. There is not the\nslightest propriety in inflicting upon the person executed one\nsingle unnecessary pang, because that partakes of the nature of\nrevenge--that is to say, of hatred--and, as a consequence, the\nState shows the same spirit that the criminal was animated by when\nhe took the life of his neighbor. If the death penalty is to be\ninflicted, let it be done in the most humane way. For my part, I\nshould like to see the criminal removed, if he must be removed,\nwith the same care and with the same mercy that you would perform\na surgical operation. Why inflict pain? Who wants it inflicted?\nWhat good can it, by any possibility, do? To inflict unnecessary\npain hardens him who inflicts it, hardens each among those who\nwitness it, and tends to demoralize the community.\n\n_Question_. Is it not the fact that punishments have grown less\nand less severe for many years past?\n\n_Answer_. In the old times punishment was the only means of\nreformation. If anybody did wrong, punish him. If people still\ncontinued to commit the same offence, increase the punishment; and\nthat went on until in what they call \"civilized countries\" they\nhanged people, provided they stole the value of one shilling. But\nlarceny kept right on. There was no diminution. So, for treason,\nbarbarous punishments were inflicted. Those guilty of that offence\nwere torn asunder by horses; their entrails were cut out of them\nwhile they were yet living and thrown into their faces; their bodies\nwere quartered and their heads were set on pikes above the gates\nof the city. Yet there was a hundred times more treason then than\nnow. Every time a man was executed and mutilated and tortured in\nthis way the seeds of other treason were sown.\n\nSo in the church there was the same idea. No reformation but by\npunishment. Of course in this world the punishment stopped when\nthe poor wretch was dead. It was found that that punishment did\nnot reform, so the church said: \"After death it will go right on,\ngetting worse and worse, forever and forever.\" Finally it was\nfound that this did not tend to the reformation of mankind. Slowly\nthe fires of hell have been dying out. The climate has been changing\nfrom year to year. Men have lost confidence in the power of the\nthumbscrew, the fagot, and the rack here, and they are losing\nconfidence in the flames of perdition hereafter. In other words,\nit is simply a question of civilization.\n\nWhen men become civilized in matters of thought, they will know\nthat every human being has the right to think for himself, and the\nright to express his honest thought. Then the world of thought\nwill be free. At that time they will be intelligent enough to know\nthat men have different thoughts, that their ways are not alike,\nbecause they have lived under different circumstances, and in that\ntime they will also know that men act as they are acted upon. And\nit is my belief that the time will come when men will no more think\nof punishing a man because he has committed the crime of larceny\nthan they will think of punishing a man because he has the consumption.\nIn the first case they will endeavor to reform him, and in the\nsecond case they will endeavor to cure him.\n\nThe intelligent people of the world, many of them, are endeavoring\nto find out the great facts in Nature that control the dispositions\nof men. So other intelligent people are endeavoring to ascertain\nthe facts and conditions that govern what we call health, and what\nwe call disease, and the object of these people is finally to\nproduce a race without disease of flesh and without disease of\nmind. These people look forward to the time when there need to be\nneither hospitals nor penitentiaries.\n\n--_New York World_, August 5, 1888.\n\n\nWOMAN'S RIGHT TO DIVORCE.\n\n_Question_. Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, the great Agnostic, has\nalways been an ardent defender of the sanctity of the home and of\nthe marriage relation. Apropos of the horrible account of a man's\ntearing out the eyes of his wife at Far Rockaway last week, Colonel\nIngersoll was asked what recourse a woman had under such\ncircumstances?\n\n_Answer_. I read the account, and I don't remember of ever having\nread anything more perfectly horrible and cruel. It is impossible\nfor me to imagine such a monster, or to account for such an inhuman\nhuman being. How a man could deprive a human being of sight, except\nwhere some religious question is involved, is beyond my comprehension.\nWe know that for many centuries frightful punishments were inflicted,\nand inflicted by the pious, by the theologians, by the spiritual\nminded, and by those who \"loved their neighbors as themselves.\"\nWe read the accounts of how the lids of men's eyes were cut off\nand then the poor victims tied where the sum would shine upon their\nlifeless orbs; of others who were buried alive; of others staked\nout on the sands of the sea, to be drowned by the rising tide; of\nothers put in sacks filled with snakes. Yet these things appeared\nfar away, and we flattered ourselves that, to a great degree, the\nworld had outgrown these atrocities; and now, here, near the close\nof the nineteenth century, we find a man--a husband--cruel enough\nto put out the eyes of the woman he swore to love, protect and\ncherish. This man has probably been taught that there is forgiveness\nfor every crime, and now imagines that when he repents there will\nbe more joy in heaven over him than over ninety and nine good and\nloving husbands who have treated their wives in the best possible\nmanner, and who, instead of tearing out their eyes, have filled\ntheir lives with content and covered their faces with kisses.\n\n_Question_. You told me, last week, in a general way, what society\nshould do with the husband in such a case as that. I would like\nto ask you to-day, what you think society ought to do with the wife\nin such a case, or what ought the wife to be permitted to do for\nherself?\n\n_Answer_. When we take into consideration the crime of the man\nwho blinded his wife, it is impossible not to think of the right\nof divorce. Many people insist that marriage is an indissoluble\ntie; that nothing can break it, and that nothing can release either\nparty from the bond. Now, take this case at Far Rockaway. One\nyear ago the husband tore out one of his wife's eyes. Had she then\ngood cause for divorce? Is it possible that an infinitely wise\nand good God would insist on this poor, helpless woman remaining\nwith the wild beast, her husband? Can anyone imagine that such a\ncourse would add to the joy of Paradise, or even tend to keep one\nharp in tune? Can the good of society require the woman to remain?\nShe did remain, and the result is that the other eye has been torn\nfrom its socket by the hands of the husband. Is she entitled to\na divorce now? And if she is granted one, is virtue in danger,\nand shall we lose the high ideal of home life? Can anything be\nmore infamous than to endeavor to make a woman, under such\ncircumstances, remain with such a man? It may be said that she\nshould leave him--that they should live separate and apart. That\nis to say, that this woman should be deprived of a home; that she\nshould not be entitled to the love of man; that she should remain,\nfor the rest of her days, worse than a widow. That is to say, a\nwife, hiding, keeping out of the way, secreting herself from the\nhyena to whom she was married. Nothing, in my judgment, can exceed\nthe heartlessness of a law or of a creed that would compel this\nwoman to remain the wife of this monster. And it is not only cruel,\nbut it is immoral, low, vulgar.\n\nThe ground has been taken that woman would lose her dignity if\nmarriages were dissoluble. Is it necessary to lose your freedom\nin order to retain your character, in order to be womanly or manly?\nMust a woman in order to retain her womanhood become a slave, a\nserf, with a wild beast for a master, or with society for a master,\nor with a phantom for a master? Has not the married woman the\nright of self-defence? Is it not the duty of society to protect\nher from her husband? If she owes no duty to her husband; if it\nis impossible for her to feel toward him any thrill of affection,\nwhat is there of marriage left? What part of the contract remains\nin force? She is not to live with him, because she abhors him.\nShe is not to remain in the same house with him, for fear he may\nkill her. What, then, are their relations? Do they sustain any\nrelation except that of hunter and hunted--that is, of tyrant and\nvictim? And is it desirable that this relation should be rendered\nsacred by a church? Is it desirable to have families raised under\nsuch circumstances? Are we really in need of the children born of\nsuch parents? If the woman is not in fault, does society insist\nthat her life should be wrecked? Can the virtue of others be\npreserved only by the destruction of her happiness, and by what\nmight be called her perpetual imprisonment? I hope the clergy who\nbelieve in the sacredness of marriage--in the indissolubility of\nthe marriage tie--will give their opinions on this case. I believe\nthat marriage is the most important contract that human beings can\nmake. I always believe that a man will keep his contract; that a\nwoman, in the highest sense, will keep hers, But suppose the man\ndoes not. Is the woman still bound?\n\nIs there no mutuality? What is a contract? It is where one party\npromises to do something in consideration that the other party will\ndo something. That is to say, there is a consideration on both\nsides, moving from one to the other. A contract without consideration\nis null and void; and a contract duly entered into, where the\nconsideration of one party is withheld, is voidable, and can be\nvoided by the party who has kept, or who is willing to keep, the\ncontract. A marriage without love is bad enough. But what can we\nsay of a marriage where the parties hate each other? Is there any\nmorality in this--any virtue? Will any decent person say that a\nwoman, true, good and loving, should be compelled to live with a\nman she detests, compelled to be the mother of his children? Is\nthere a woman in the world who would not shrink from this herself?\nAnd is there a woman so heartless and so immoral that she would\nforce another to bear what she would shudderingly avoid? Let us\nbring these questions home. In other words, let us have some sense,\nsome feeling, some heart--and just a little brain. Marriages are\nmade by men and women. They are not made by the State, and they\nare not made by the gods. By this time people should learn that\nhuman happiness is the foundation of virtue--the foundation of\nmorality. Nothing is moral that does not tend to the well-being\nof sentient beings. Nothing is virtuous the result of which is\nnot a human good. The world has always been living for phantoms,\nfor ghosts, for monsters begotten by ignorance and fear. The world\nshould learn to live for itself. Man should, by this time, be\nconvinced that all the reasons for doing right, and all the reasons\nfor doing wrong, are right here in this world--all within the\nhorizon of this life. And besides, we should have imagination to\nput ourselves in the place of another. Let a man suppose himself\na helpless wife, beaten by a brute who believes in the indissolubility\nof marriage. Would he want a divorce?\n\nI suppose that very few people have any adequate idea of the\nsufferings of women and children; of the number of wives who tremble\nwhen they hear the footsteps of a returning husband; of the number\nof children who hide when they hear the voice of a father. Very\nfew people know the number of blows that fall on the flesh of the\nhelpless every day. Few know the nights of terror passed by mothers\nholding young children at their breasts. Compared with this, the\nhardships of poverty, borne by those who love each other, are\nnothing. Men and women, truly married, bear the sufferings of\npoverty. They console each other; their affection gives to the\nheart of each perpetual sunshine. But think of the others! I have\nsaid a thousand times that the home is the unit of good government.\nWhen we have kind fathers and loving mothers, then we shall have\ncivilized nations, and not until then. Civilization commences at\nthe hearthstone. When intelligence rocks the cradle--when the\nhouse is filled with philosophy and kindness--you will see a world\na peace. Justice will sit in the courts, wisdom in the legislative\nhalls, and over all, like the dome of heaven, will be the spirit\nof Liberty!\n\n_Question_. What is your idea with regard to divorce?\n\n_Answer_. My idea is this: As I said before, marriage is the most\nsacred contract--the most important contract--that human beings can\nmake. As a rule, the woman dowers the husband with her youth--with\nall she has. From this contract the husband should never be released\nunless the wife has broken a condition; that is to say, has failed\nto fulfill the contract of marriage. On the other hand, the woman\nshould be allowed a divorce for the asking. This should be granted\nin public, precisely as the marriage should be in public. Every\nmarriage should be known. There should be witnesses, to the end\nthat the character of the contract entered into should be understood;\nand as all marriage records should be kept, so the divorce should\nbe open, public and known. The property should be divided by a\ncourt of equity, under certain regulations of law. If there are\nchildren, they should be provided for through the property and the\nparents. People should understand that men and women are not\nvirtuous by law. They should comprehend the fact that law does\nnot create virtue--that law is not the foundation, the fountain,\nof love. They should understand that love is in the human heart,\nand that real love is virtuous. People who love each other will\nbe true to each other. The death of love is the commencement of\nvice. Besides this, there is a public opinion that has great\nweight. When that public opinion is right, it does a vast amount\nof good, and when wrong, a great amount of harm. People marry, or\nshould marry, because it increases the happiness of each and all.\nBut where the marriage turns out to have been a mistake, and where\nthe result is misery, and not happiness, the quicker they are\ndivorced the better, not only for themselves, but for the community\nat large. These arguments are generally answered by some donkey\nbraying about free love, and by \"free love\" he means a condition\nof society in which there is no love. The persons who make this\ncry are, in all probability, incapable of the sentiment, of the\nfeeling, known as love. They judge others by themselves, and they\nimagine that without law there would be no restraint.\n\nWhat do they say of natural modesty? Do they forget that people\nhave a choice? Do they not understand something of the human heart,\nand that true love has always been as pure as the morning star?\nDo they believe that by forcing people to remain together who\ndespise each other they are adding to the purity of the marriage\nrelation? Do they not know that all marriage is an outward act,\ntestifying to that which has happened in the heart? Still, I always\nbelieve that words are wasted on such people. It is useless to\ntalk to anybody about music who is unable to distinguish one tune\nfrom another. It is useless to argue with a man who regards his\nwife as his property, and it is hardly worth while to suggest\nanything to a gentleman who imagines that society is so constructed\nthat it really requires, for the protection of itself, that the\nlives of good and noble women should be wrecked, I am a believer\nin the virtue of women, in the honesty of man. The average woman\nis virtuous; the average man is honest, and the history of the\nworld shows it. If it were not so, society would be impossible.\nI don't mean by this that most men are perfect, but what I mean is\nthis: That there is far more good than evil in the average human\nbeing, and that the natural tendency of most people is toward the\ngood and toward the right. And I most passionately deny that the\ngood of society demands that any good person should suffer. I do\nnot regard government as a Juggernaut, the wheels of which must,\nof necessity, roll over and crush the virtuous, the self-denying\nand the good. My doctrine is the exact opposite of what is known\nas free love. I believe in the marriage of true minds and of true\nhearts. But I believe that thousands of people are married who do\nnot love each other. That is the misfortune of our century. Other\nthings are taken into consideration--position, wealth, title and\nthe thousand things that have nothing to do with real affection.\nWhere men and women truly love each other, that love, in my judgment,\nlasts as long as life. The greatest line that I know of in the\npoetry of the world is in the 116th sonnet of Shakespeare: \"Love\nis not love which alters when it alteration finds.\"\n\n_Question_. Why do you make such a distinction between the rights\nof man and the rights of women?\n\n_Answer_. The woman has, as her capital, her youth, her beauty.\nWe will say that she is married at twenty or twenty-five. In a\nfew years she has lost her beauty. During these years the man, so\nfar as capacity to make money is concerned--to do something--has\ngrown better and better. That is to say, his chances have improved;\nhers have diminished. She has dowered him with the Spring of her\nlife, and as her life advances her chances decrease. Consequently,\nI would give her the advantage, and I would not compel her to remain\nwith him against her will. It seems to me far worse to be a wife\nupon compulsion than to be a husband upon compulsion. Besides\nthis, I have a feeling of infinite tenderness toward mothers. The\nwoman that bears children certainly should not be compelled to live\nwith a man whom she despises. The suffering is enough when the\nfather of the child is to her the one man of all the world. Many\npeople who have a mechanical apparatus in their breasts that assists\nin the circulation of what they call blood, regard these views as\nsentimental. But when you take sentiment out of the world nothing\nis left worth living for, and when you get sentiment out of the\nheart it is nothing more or less than a pump, an old piece of rubber\nthat has acquired the habit of contracting and dilating. But I\nhave this consolation: The people that do not agree with me are\nthose that do not understand me.\n\n--_New York World_, 1888.\n\n\nSECULARISM.\n\n_Question_. Colonel, what is your opinion of Secularism? Do you\nregard it as a religion?\n\n_Answer_. I understand that the word Secularism embraces everything\nthat is of any real interest or value to the human race. I take\nit for granted that everybody will admit that well-being is the\nonly good; that is to say, that it is impossible to conceive of\nanything of real value that does not tend either to preserve or to\nincrease the happiness of some sentient being. Secularism, therefore,\ncovers the entire territory. It fills the circumference of human\nknowledge and of human effort. It is, you may say, the religion\nof this world; but if there is another world, it is necessarily\nthe religion of that, as well.\n\nMan finds himself in this world naked and hungry. He needs food,\nraiment, shelter. He finds himself filled with almost innumerable\nwants. To gratify these wants is the principal business of life.\nTo gratify them without interfering with other people is the course\npursued by all honest men.\n\nSecularism teaches us to be good here and now. I know nothing\nbetter than goodness. Secularism teaches us to be just here and\nnow. It is impossible to be juster than just.\n\nMan can be as just in this world as in any other, and justice must\nbe the same in all worlds. Secularism teaches a man to be generous,\nand generosity is certainly as good here as it can be anywhere\nelse. Secularism teaches a man to be charitable, and certainly\ncharity is as beautiful in this world and in this short life as it\ncould be were man immortal.\n\nBut orthodox people insist that there is something higher than\nSecularism; but, as a matter of fact, the mind of man can conceive\nof nothing better, nothing higher, nothing more spiritual, than\ngoodness, justice, generosity, charity. Neither has the mind of\nmen been capable of finding a nobler incentive to action than human\nlove. Secularism has to do with every possible relation. It says\nto the young man and to the young woman: \"Don't marry unless you\ncan take care of yourselves and your children.\" It says to the\nparents: \"Live for your children; put forth every effort to the\nend that your children may know more than you--that they may be\nbetter and grander than you.\" It says: \"You have no right to\nbring children into the world that you are not able to educate and\nfeed and clothe.\" It says to those who have diseases that can be\ntransmitted to children: \"Do not marry; do not become parents; do\nnot perpetuate suffering, deformity, agony, imbecility, insanity,\npoverty, wretchedness.\"\n\nSecularism tells all children to do the best they can for their\nparents--to discharge every duty and every obligation. It defines\nthe relation that should exist between husband and wife; between\nparent and child; between the citizen and the Nation. And not only\nthat, but between nations.\n\nSecularism is a religion that is to be used everywhere, and at all\ntimes--that is to be taught everywhere and practiced at all times.\nIt is not a religion that is so dangerous that it must be kept out\nof the schools; it is not a religion that is so dangerous that it\nmust be kept out of politics. It belongs in the schools; it belongs\nat the polls. It is the business of Secularism to teach every\nchild; to teach every voter. It is its business to discuss all\npolitical problems, and to decide all questions that affect the\nrights or the happiness of a human being.\n\nOrthodox religion is a firebrand; it must be kept out of the schools;\nit must be kept out of politics. All the churches unite in saying\nthat orthodox religion is not for every day use. The Catholics\nobject to any Protestant religion being taught to children.\nProtestants object to any Catholic religion being taught to\nchildren. But the Secularist wants his religion taught to all;\nand his religion can produce no feeling, for the reason that it\nconsists of facts--of truths. And all of it is important; important\nfor the child, important for the parent, important for the politician\n--for the President--for all in power; important to every legislator,\nto every professional man, to every laborer and every farmer--that\nis to say, to every human being.\n\nThe great benefit of Secularism is that is appeals to the reason\nof every man. It asks every man to think for himself. It does\nnot threaten punishment if a man thinks, but it offers a reward,\nfor fear that he will not think. It does not say, \"You will be\ndamned in another world if you think.\" But it says, \"You will be\ndamned in this world if you do not think.\"\n\nSecularism preserves the manhood and the womanhood of all. It says\nto each human being: \"Stand upon your own feet. Count one!\nExamine for yourself. Investigate, observe, think. Express your\nopinion. Stand by your judgment, unless you are convinced you are\nwrong, and when you are convinced, you can maintain and preserve\nyour manhood or womanhood only by admitting that you were wrong.\"\n\nIt is impossible that the whole world should agree on one creed.\nIt may be impossible that any two human beings can agree exactly\nin religious belief. Secularism teaches that each one must take\ncare of himself, that the first duty of man is to himself, to the\nend that he may be not only useful to himself, but to others. He\nwho fails to take care of himself becomes a burden; the first duty\nof man is not to be a burden.\n\nEvery Secularist can give a reason for his creed. First of all,\nhe believes in work--taking care of himself. He believes in the\ncultivation of the intellect, to the end that he may take advantage\nof the forces of nature--to the end that he may be clothed and fed\nand sheltered.\n\nHe also believes in giving to every other human being every right\nthat he claims for himself. He does not depend on prayer. He has\nno confidence in ghosts or phantoms. He knows nothing of another\nworld, and knows just as little of a First Cause. But what little\nhe does know, he endeavors to use, and to use for the benefit of\nhimself and others.\n\nHe knows that he sustains certain relations to other sentient\nbeings, and he endeavors to add to the aggregate of human joy. He\nis his own church, his own priest, his own clergyman and his own\npope. He decides for himself; in other words, he is a free man.\n\nHe also has a Bible, and this Bible embraces all the good and true\nthings that have been written, no matter by whom, or in what\nlanguage, or in what time. He accepts everything that he believes\nto be true, and rejects all that he thinks is false. He knows that\nnothing is added to the probability of an event, because there has\nbeen an account of it written and printed.\n\nAll that has been said that is true is part of his Bible. Every\nsplendid and noble thought, every good word, every kind action--\nall these you will find in his Bible. And, in addition to these,\nall that is absolutely known--that has been demonstrated--belongs\nto the Secularist. All the inventions, machines--everything that\nhas been of assistance to the human race--belongs to his religion.\nThe Secularist is in possession of everything that man has. He is\ndeprived only of that which man never had. The orthodox world\nbelieves in ghosts and phantoms, in dreams and prayers, in miracles\nand monstrosities; that is to say, in modern theology. But these\nthings do not exist, or if they do exist, it is impossible for a\nhuman being to ascertain the fact. Secularism has no \"castles in\nSpain.\" It has no glorified fog. It depends upon realities, upon\ndemonstrations; and its end and aim is to make this world better\nevery day--to do away with poverty and crime, and to cover the\nworld with happy and contended homes.\n\nLet me say, right here, that a few years ago the Secular Hall at\nLeicester, England, was opened by a speech from George Jacob\nHolyoake, entitled, \"Secularism as a Religion.\" I have never read\nanything better on the subject of Secularism than this address.\nIt is so clear and so manly that I do not see how any human being\ncan read it without becoming convinced, and almost enraptured.\n\nLet me quote a few lies from this address:--\n\n\"The mind of man would die if it were not for Thought, and were\nThought suppressed, God would rule over a world of idiots.\n\n\"Nature feeds Thought, day and night, with a million hands.\n\n\"To think is a duty, because it is a man's duty not to be a fool.\n\n\"If man does not think himself, he is an intellectual pauper, living\nupon the truth acquired by others, and making no contribution\nhimself in return. He has no ideas but such as he obtains by 'out-\ndoor relief,' and he goes about the world with a charity mind.\n\n\"The more thinkers there are in the world, the more truth there is\nin the world.\n\n\"Progress can only walk in the footsteps of Conviction.\n\n\"Coercion in thought is not progress, it reduces to ignominious\npulp the backbone of the mind.\n\n\"By Religion I mean the simple creed of deed and duty, by which a\nman seeks his own welfare in his own way, with an honest and fair\nregard to the welfare and ways of others.\n\n\"In these thinking and practical days, men demand a religion of\ndaily life, which stands on a business footing.\"\n\nI think nothing could be much better than the following, which\nshows the exact relation that orthodox religion sustains to the\nactual wants of human beings:\n\n\"The Churches administer a system of Foreign Affairs.\n\n\"Secularism dwells in a land of its own. It dwells in a land of\nCertitude.\n\n\"In the Kingdom of Thought there is no conquest over man, but over\nfoolishness only.\"\n\nI will not quote more, but hope all who read this will read the\naddress of Mr. Holyoake, who has, in my judgment, defined Secularism\nwith the greatest possible clearness.\n\n_Question_. What, in your opinion, are the best possible means to\nspread this gospel or religion of Secularism?\n\n_Answer_. This can only be done by the cultivation of the mind--\nonly through intelligence--because we are fighting only the monsters\nof the mind. The phantoms whom we are endeavoring to destroy do\nnot exist; they are all imaginary. They live in that undeveloped\nor unexplored part of the mind that belongs to barbarism.\n\nI have sometimes thought that a certain portion of the mind is\ncultivated so that it rises above the surrounding faculties and is\nlike some peak that has lifted itself above the clouds, while all\nthe valleys below are dark or dim with mist and cloud. It is in\nthis valley-region, amid these mists, beneath these clouds, that\nthese monsters and phantoms are born. And there they will remain\nuntil the mind sheds light--until the brain is developed.\n\nOne exceedingly important thing is to teach man that his mind has\nlimitations; that there are walls that he cannot scale--that he\ncannot pierce, that he cannot dig under. When a man finds the\nlimitations of his own mind, he knows that other people's minds\nhave limitations. He, instead of believing what the priest says,\nhe asks the priest questions. In a few moments he finds that the\npriest has been drawing on his imagination for what is beyond the\nwall. Consequently he finds that the priest knows no more than\nhe, and it is impossible that he should know more than he.\n\nAn ignorant man has not the slightest suspicion of what a superior\nman may do. Consequently, he is liable to become the victim of\nthe intelligent and cunning. A man wholly unacquainted with\nchemistry, after having been shown a few wonders, is ready to\nbelieve anything. But a chemist who knows something of the\nlimitations of that science--who knows what chemists have done and\nwho knows the nature of things--cannot be imposed upon. When no\none can be imposed upon, orthodox religion cannot exist. It is an\nimposture, and there must be impostors and there must be victims,\nor the religion cannot be a success.\n\nSecularism cannot be a success, universally, as long as there is\nan impostor or a victim. This is the difference: The foundation\nof orthodox religion is imposture. The foundation of Secularism\nis demonstration. Just to the extent that a man knows, he becomes\na Secularist.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the action of the Knights of\nLabor in Indiana in turning out one of their members because he\nwas an Atheist, and because he objected to the reading of the Bible\nat lodge meetings?\n\n_Answer_. In my judgment, the Knights of Labor have made a great\nmistake. They want liberty for themselves--they feel that, to a\ncertain extent, they have been enslaved and robbed. If they want\nliberty, they should be willing to give liberty to others. Certainly\none of their members has the same right to his opinion with regard\nto the existence of a God, that the other members have to theirs.\n\nI do not blame this man for doubting the existence of a Supreme\nBeing, provided he understands the history of liberty. When a man\ntakes into consideration the fact that for many thousands of years\nlabor was unpaid, nearly all of it being done by slaves, and that\nmillions and hundreds of millions of human beings were bought and\nsold the same as cattle, and that during all that time the religions\nof the world upheld the practice, and the priests of the countless\nunknown gods insisted that the institution of slavery was divine--\nI do not wonder that he comes to the conclusion that, perhaps,\nafter all, there is no Supreme Being--at least none who pays any\nparticular attention to the affairs of this world.\n\nIf one will read the history of the slave-trade, of the cruelties\npracticed, of the lives sacrificed, of the tortures inflicted, he\nwill at least wonder why \"a God of infinite goodness and wisdom\"\ndid not interfere just a little; or, at least, why he did not deny\nthat he was in favor of the trade. Here, in our own country,\nmillions of men were enslaved, and hundreds and thousands of\nministers stood up in their pulpits, with their Bibles in front of\nthem, and proceeded to show that slavery was about the only\ninstitution that they were absolutely certain was divine. And they\nproved it by reading passages from this very Bible that the Knights\nof Labor in Indiana are anxious to have read in their meetings.\nFor their benefit, let me call their attention to a few passages,\nand suggest that, hereafter, they read those passages at every\nmeeting, for the purpose of convincing all the Knights that the\nLord is on the side of those who work for a living:--\n\n\"Both thy bondsmen and thy bondsmaids which thou shalt have, shall\nbe of the heathen round about you; of them shall ye buy bondsmen\nand bondmaids.\n\n\"Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among\nyou, of them shall ye buy, and of their families which are with\nyou, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your\npossession.\n\n\"And ye shall take them as an inheritance, for your children after\nyou to inherit them for a possession. They shall be your bondsmen\nforever.\"\n\nNothing seems more natural to me than that a man who believes that\nlabor should be free, and that he who works should be free, should\ncome to the conclusion that the passages above quoted are not\nentirely on his side. I don't see why people should be in favor\nof free bodies who are not also in favor of free minds. If the\nmind is to remain in imprisonment, it is hardly worth while to free\nthe body. If the man has the right to labor, he certainly has the\nright to use his mind, because without mind he can do no labor.\nAs a rule, the more mind he has, the more valuable his labor is,\nand the freer his mind is the more valuable he is.\n\nIf the Knights of Labor expect to accomplish anything in this world,\nthey must do it by thinking. They must have reason on their side,\nand the only way they can do anything by thinking is to allow each\nother to think. Let all the men who do not believe in the inspiration\nof the Bible, leave the Knights of Labor and I do not know how many\nwould be left. But I am perfectly certain that those left will\naccomplish very little, simply from their lack of sense.\n\nIntelligent clergymen have abandoned the idea of plenary inspiration.\nThe best ministers in the country admit that the Bible is full of\nmistakes, and while many of them are forced to say that slavery is\nupheld by the Old Testament they also insist that slavery was and\nis, and forever will be wrong. What had the Knights of Labor to\ndo with a question of religion? What business is it of theirs who\nbelieves or disbelieves in the religion of the day? Nobody can\ndefend the rights of labor without defending the right to think.\n\nI hope that in time these Knights will become intelligent enough\nto read in their meetings something of importance; something that\napplies to this century; something that will throw a little light\non questions under discussion at the present time. The idea of\nmen engaged in a kind of revolution reading from Leviticus,\nDeuteronomy and Haggai, for the purpose of determining the rights\nof workingmen in the nineteenth century! No wonder such men have\nbeen swallowed by the whale of monopoly. And no wonder that,\nwhile that are in the belly of this fish, they insist on casting\nout a man with sense enough to understand the situation! The\nKnights of Labor have made a mistake and the sooner they reverse\ntheir action the better for all concerned. Nothing should be taught\nin this world that somebody does not know.\n\n--_Secular Thought_, Toronto, Canada, August 25, 1888.\n\n\nSUMMER RECREATION--MR. GLADSTONE.\n\n_Question_. What is the best philosophy of summer recreation?\n\n_Answer_. As a matter of fact, no one should be overworked.\nRecreation becomes necessary only when a man has abused himself or\nhas been abused. Holidays grew out of slavery. An intelligent\nman ought not to work so hard to-day that he is compelled to rest\nto-morrow. Each day should have its labor and its rest. But in\nour civilization, if it can be called civilization, every man is\nexpected to devote himself entirely to business for the most of\nthe year and by that means to get into such a state of body and\nmind that he requires, for the purpose of recreation, the\ninconveniences, the poor diet, the horrible beds, the little towels,\nthe warm water, the stale eggs and the tough beef of the average\n\"resort.\" For the purpose of getting his mental and physical\nmachinery in fine working order, he should live in a room for two\nor three months that is about eleven by thirteen; that is to say,\nhe should live in a trunk, fight mosquitoes, quarrel with strangers,\ndispute bills, and generally enjoy himself; and this is supposed\nto be the philosophy of summer recreation. He can do this, or he\ncan go to some extremely fashionable resort where his time is taken\nup in making himself and family presentable.\n\nSeriously, there are few better summer resorts than New York City.\nIf there were no city here it would be the greatest resort for the\nsummer on the continent; with its rivers, its bay, with its wonderful\nscenery, with the winds from the sea, no better could be found.\nBut we cannot in this age of the world live in accordance with\nphilosophy. No particular theory can be carried out. We must live\nas we must; we must earn our bread and we must earn it as others\ndo, and, as a rule, we must work when others work. Consequently,\nif we are to take any recreation we must follow the example of\nothers; go when they go and come when they come. In other words,\nman is a social being, and if one endeavors to carry individuality\nto an extreme he must suffer the consequences. So I have made up\nmy mind to work as little as I can and to rest as much as I can.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of Mr. Gladstone as a controversialist?\n\n_Answer_. Undoubtedly Mr. Gladstone is a man of great talent, of\nvast and varied information, and undoubtedly he is, politically\nspeaking, at least, one of the greatest men in England--possibly\nthe greatest. As a controversialist, and I suppose by that you\nmean on religious questions, he is certainly as good as his cause.\nFew men can better defend the indefensible than Mr. Gladstone.\nFew men can bring forward more probabilities in favor of the\nimpossible, then Mr. Gladstone. He is, in my judgment, controlled\nin the realm of religion by sentiment; he was taught long ago\ncertain things as absolute truths and he has never questioned them.\nHe has had all he can do to defend them. It is of but little use\nto attack sentiment with argument, or to attack argument with\nsentiment. A question of sentiment can hardly be discussed; it is\nlike a question of taste. A man is enraptured with a landscape by\nCorot; you cannot argue him out of his rapture; the sharper the\ncriticism the greater his admiration, because he feels that it is\nincumbent upon him to defend the painter who has given him so much\nreal pleasure. Some people imagine that what they think ought to\nexist must exist, and that what they really desire to be true is\ntrue. We must remember that Mr. Gladstone has been what is called\na deeply religions man all his life. There was a time when he\nreally believed it to be the duty of the government to see to it\nthat the citizens were religious; when he really believed that no\nman should hold any office or any position under the government\nwho was not a believer in the established religion; who was not a\ndefender of the parliamentary faith. I do not know whether he has\never changed his opinions upon these subjects or not. There is\nnot the slightest doubt as to his honesty, as to his candor. He\nsays what he believes, and for his belief he gives the reasons that\nare satisfactory to him. To me it seems impossible that miracles\ncan be defended. I do not see how it is possible to bring forward\nany evidence that any miracle was ever performed; and unless miracles\nhave been performed, Christianity has no basis as a system. Mr.\nHume took the ground that it was impossible to substantiate a\nmiracle, for the reason that it is more probable that the witnesses\nare mistaken, or are dishonest, than that a fact in nature should\nbe violated. For instance: A man says that a certain time, in a\ncertain locality, the attraction of gravitation was suspended; that\nthere were several moments during which a cannon ball weighed\nnothing, during which when dropped from the hand, or rather when\nreleased from the hand, it refused to fall and remained in the air.\nIt is safe to say that no amount of evidence, no number of witnesses,\ncould convince an intelligent man to-day that such a thing occurred.\nWe believe too thoroughly in the constancy of nature. While men\nwill not believe witnesses who testify to the happening of miracles\nnow, they seem to have perfect confidence in men whom they never\nsaw, who have been dead for two thousand years. Of course it is\nknown that Mr. Gladstone has published a few remarks concerning my\nreligious views and that I have answered him the best I could. I\nhave no opinion to give as to that controversy; neither would it\nbe proper for me to say what I think of the arguments advanced by\nMr. Gladstone in addition to what I have already published. I am\nwilling to leave the controversy where it is, or I am ready to\nanswer any further objections that Mr. Gladstone may be pleased to\nurge.\n\nIn my judgment, the \"Age of Faith\" is passing away. We are living\nin a time of demonstration.\n\n[NOTE: From an unfinished interview found among Colonel Ingersoll's\npapers.]\n\n\nPROHIBITION.\n\nIt has been decided in many courts in various States that the\ntraffic in liquor can be regulated--that it is a police question.\nIt has been decided by the courts in Iowa that its manufacture and\nsale can be prohibited, and, not only so, but that a distillery or\na brewery may be declared a nuisance and may legally be abated,\nand these decisions have been upheld by the Supreme Court of the\nUnited States. Consequently, it has been settled by the highest\ntribunal that States have the power either to regulate or to prohibit\nthe sale of intoxicating liquors, and not only so, but that States\nhave the power to destroy breweries and distilleries without making\nany compensation to owners.\n\nSo it has always been considered within the power of the State to\nlicense the selling of intoxicating liquors. In other words, this\nquestion is one that the States can decide for themselves. It is\nnot, and it should not be, in my judgment, a Federal question. It\nis something with which the United States has nothing to do. It\nbelongs to the States; and where a majority of the people are in\nfavor of prohibition and pass laws to that effect, there is nothing\nin the Constitution of the United States that interferes with such\naction.\n\nThe remaining question, then, is not a question of power, but a\nquestion of policy, and at the threshold of this question is another:\nCan prohibitory laws be enforced? There are to-day in Kansas,--a\nprohibition State--more saloons, that is to say, more places in\nwhich liquor is sold, than there are in Georgia, a State without\nprohibition legislation. There are more in Nebraska, according to\nthe population, more in Iowa, according to the population, than in\nmany of the States in which there is the old license system. You\nwill find that the United States has granted more licenses to\nwholesale and retail dealers in these prohibition States,--according\nto the population,--than in many others in which prohibition has\nnot been adopted.\n\nThese facts tend to show that it is not enough for the Legislature\nto say: \"Be it enacted.\" Behind every law there must be an\nintelligent and powerful public opinion. A law, to be enforced,\nmust be the expression of such powerful and intelligent opinion;\notherwise it becomes a dead letter; it is avoided; judges continue\nthe cases, juries refuse to convict, and witnesses are not particular\nabout telling the truth. Such laws demoralize the community, or,\nto put it in another way, demoralized communities pass such laws.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the prohibitory movement on\ngeneral principles?\n\n_Answer_. The trouble is that when a few zealous men, intending\nto reform the world, endeavor to enforce unpopular laws, they are\ncompelled to resort to detectives, to a system of espionage. For\nthe purpose of preventing the sale of liquors somebody has to watch.\nEyes and ears must become acquainted with keyholes. Every neighbor\nsuspects every other. A man with a bottle or demijohn is followed.\nThose who drink get behind doors, in cellars and garrets. Hypocrisy\nbecomes substantially universal. Hundreds of people become suddenly\nafflicted with a variety of diseases, for the cure of which alcohol\nin some form is supposed to be indispensable. Malaria becomes general,\nand it is perfectly astonishing how long a few pieces of Peruvian\nbark will last, and how often the liquor can be renewed without\nabsorbing the medicinal qualities of the bark. The State becomes\na paradise for patent medicine--the medicine being poor whiskey\nwith a scientific name.\n\nPhysicians become popular in proportion as liquor of some kind\nfigures in their prescriptions. Then in the towns clubs are formed,\nthe principal object being to establish a saloon, and in many\ninstances the drug store becomes a favorite resort, especially on\nSundays.\n\nThere is, however, another side to this question. It is this:\nNothing in the world is more important than personal liberty. Many\npeople are in favor of blotting out the sun to prevent the growth\nof weeds. This is the mistake of all prohibitory fanaticism.\n\n_Question_. What is true temperance, Colonel Ingersoll?\n\n_Answer_. Men have used stimulants for many thousand years, and\nas much is used to-day in various forms as in any other period of\nthe world's history. They are used with more prudence now than\never before, for the reason that the average man is more intelligent\nnow than ever before. Intelligence has much to do with temperance.\nThe barbarian rushes to the extreme, for the reason that but little,\ncomparatively, depends upon his personal conduct or personal habits.\nNow the struggle for life is so sharp, competition is so severe,\nthat few men can succeed who carry a useless burden. The business\nmen of our country are compelled to lead temperate lives, otherwise\ntheir credit is gone. Men of wealth, men of intelligence, do not\nwish to employ intemperate physicians. They are not willing to\ntrust their health or their lives with a physician who is under\nthe influence of liquor. The same is true of business men in regard\nto their legal interests. They insist upon having sober attorneys;\nthey want the counsel of a sober man. So in every department. On\nthe railways it is absolutely essential that the engineer, that\nthe conductor, the train dispatcher and every other employee, in\nwhose hands are the lives of men, should be temperate. The\nconsequence is that under the law of the survival of the fittest,\nthe intemperate are slowly but surely going to the wall; they are\nslowly but surely being driven out of employments of trust and\nimportance. As we rise in the scale of civilization we continually\ndemand better and better service. We are continually insisting\nupon better habits, upon a higher standard of integrity, of fidelity.\nThese are the causes, in my judgment, that are working together in\nthe direction of true temperance.\n\n_Question_. Do you believe the people can be made to do without\na stimulant?\n\n_Answer_. The history of the world shows that all men who have\nadvanced one step beyond utter barbarism have used some kind of\nstimulant. Man has sought for it in every direction. Every savage\nloves it. Everything has been tried. Opium has been used by many\nhundreds of millions. Hasheesh has filled countless brains with\nchaotic dreams, and everywhere that civilization has gone the blood\nof the grape has been used. Nothing is easier now to obtain than\nliquor. In one bushel of corn there are at least five gallons--\nfour can easily be extracted. All starch, all sugars, can be\nchanged almost instantly into alcohol. Every grain that grows has\nin it the intoxicating principle, and, as a matter of fact, nearly\nall of the corn, wheat, sugar and starch that man eats is changed\ninto alcohol in his stomach. Whether man can be compelled to do\nwithout a stimulant is a question that I am unable to answer. Of\none thing I am certain: He has never yet been compelled to do\nwithout one. The tendency, I think, of modern times is toward a\nmilder stimulant than distilled liquors. Whisky and brandies are\ntoo strong; wine and beer occupy the middle ground. Wine is a\nfireside, whisky a conflagration.\n\nIt seems to me that it would be far better if the Prohibitionists\nwould turn their attention toward distilled spirits. If they were\nwilling to compromise, the probability is that they would have\npublic opinion on their side. If they would say: \"You may have\nall the beer and all the wine and cider you wish, and you can drink\nthem when and where you desire, but the sale of distilled spirits\nshall be prohibited,\" it is possible that this could be carried\nout in good faith in many if not in most of the States--possibly\nin all. We all know the effect of wine, even when taken in excess,\nis nothing near as disastrous as the effect of distilled spirits.\nWhy not take the middle ground? The wine drinkers of the old\ncountry are not drunkards. They have been drinking wine for\ngenerations. It is drunk by men, women and children. It adds to\nthe sociability of the family. It does not separate the husband\nfrom the rest, it keeps them all together, and in that view is\nrather a benefit than an injury. Good wine can be raised as cheaply\nhere as in any part of the world. In nearly every part of our\ncountry the grape grows and good wine can be made. If our people\nhad a taste for wine they would lose the taste for stronger drink,\nand they would be disgusted with the surroundings of the stronger\ndrink.\n\nThe same may be said in favor of beer. As long as the Prohibitionists\nmake no distinction between wine and whisky, between beer and\nbrandy, just so long they will be regarded by most people as\nfanatics.\n\nThe Prohibitionists cannot expect to make this question a Federal\none. The United States has no jurisdiction of this subject.\nCongress can pass no laws affecting this question that could have\nany force except in such parts of our country as are not within\nthe jurisdiction of States. It is a question for the States and\nnot for the Federal Government. The Prohibitionists are simply\nthrowing away their votes. Let us suppose that we had a Prohibition\nCongress and a Prohibition President--what steps could be taken to\ndo away with drinking in the city of New York? What steps could\nbe taken in any State of this Union? What could by any possibility\nbe done?\n\nA few years ago the Prohibitionists demanded above all things that\nthe tax be taken from distilled spirits, claiming at that time that\nsuch a tax made the Government a partner in vice.\n\nNow when the Republican party proposes under certain circumstances\nto remove that tax, the Prohibitionists denounce the movement as\none in favor of intemperance. We have also been told that the tax\non whisky should be kept for the reason that it increases the price,\nand that an increased price tends to make a temperate people; that\nif the tax is taken off, the price will fall and the whole country\nstart on the downward road to destruction. Is it possible that\nhuman nature stands on such slippery ground? It is possible that\nour civilization to-day rests upon the price of alcohol, and that,\nshould the price be reduced, we would all go down together? For\none, I cannot entertain such a humiliating and disgraceful view of\nhuman nature. I believe that man is destined to grow greater,\ngrander and nobler. I believe that no matter what the cost of\nalcohol may be, life will grow too valuable to be thrown away.\nMen hold life according to its value. Men, as a rule, only throw\naway their lives when they are not worth keeping. When life becomes\nworth living it will be carefully preserved and will be hoarded to\nthe last grain of sand that falls through the glass of time.\n\n_Question_. What is the reason for so much intemperance?\n\n_Answer_. When many people are failures, when they are distanced\nin the race, when they fall behind, when they give up, when they\nlose ambition, when they finally become convinced that they are\nworthless, precisely as they are in danger of becoming dishonest.\nIn other words, having failed in the race of life on the highway,\nthey endeavor to reach to goal by going across lots, by crawling\nthrough the grass. Disguise this matter as we may, all people are\nnot successes, all people have not the brain or the muscle or the\nmoral stamina necessary to succeed. Some fall in one way, some in\nanother; some in the net of strong drink, some in the web of\ncircumstances and others in a thousand ways, and the world itself\ncannot grow better unless the unworthy fail. The law is the survival\nof the fittest, that is to say, the destruction of the unfit.\nThere is no scheme of morals, no scheme of government, no scheme\nof charity, that can reverse this law. If it could be reversed,\nthen the result would be the survival of the unfittest, the speedy\nend of which would be the extinction of the human race.\n\nTemperance men say that it is wise, in so far as possible, to remove\ntemptation from our fellow-men.\n\nLet us look at this in regard to other matters. How do we do away\nwith larceny? We cannot remove property. We cannot destroy the\nmoney of the world to keep people from stealing some of it. In\nother words, we cannot afford to make the world valueless to prevent\nlarceny. All strength by which temptation is resisted must come\nfrom the inside. Virtue does not depend upon the obstacles to be\novercome; virtue depends upon what is inside of the man. A man is\nnot honest because the safe of the bank is perfectly secure. Upon\nthe honest man the condition of the safe has no effect. We will\nnever succeed in raising great and splendid people by keeping them\nout of temptation. Great people withstand temptation. Great people\nhave what may be called moral muscle, moral force. They are poised\nwithin themselves. They understand their relations to the world.\nThe best possible foundation for honesty is the intellectual\nperception that dishonesty can, under no circumstances, be a good\ninvestment--that larceny is not only wicked, but foolish--not only\ncriminal, but stupid--that crimes are committed only by fools.\n\nOn every hand there is what is called temptation. Every man has\nthe opportunity of doing wrong. Every man, in this country, has\nthe opportunity of drinking too much, has the opportunity of\nacquiring the opium habit, has the opportunity of taking morphine\nevery day--in other words, has the opportunity of destroying himself.\nHow are they to be prevented? Most of them are prevented--at least\nin a reasonable degree--and they are prevented by their intelligence,\nby their surroundings, by their education, by their objects and\naims in life, by the people they love, by the people who love them.\n\nNo one will deny the evils of intemperance, and it is hardly to be\nwondered at that people who regard only one side--who think of the\nimpoverished and wretched, of wives and children in want, of desolate\nhomes--become the advocates of absolute prohibition. At the same\ntime, there is a philosophic side, and the question is whether more\ngood cannot be done by moral influence, by example, by education,\nby the gradual civilization of our fellow-men, than in any other\npossible way. The greatest things are accomplished by indirection.\nIn this way the idea of force, of slavery, is avoided. The person\ninfluenced does not feel that he has been trampled upon, does not\nregard himself as a victim--he feels rather as a pupil, as one who\nreceives a benefit, whose mind has been enlarged, whose life has\nbeen enriched--whereas the direct way of \"Thou shalt not\" produces\nan antagonism--in other words, produces the natural result of \"I\nwill.\"\n\nBy removing one temptation you add strength to others. By depriving\na man of one stimulant, as a rule, you drive him to another, and\nthe other may be far worse than the one from which he has been\ndriven. We have hundreds of laws making certain things misdemeanors,\nwhich are naturally right.\n\nThousands of people, honest in most directions, delight in outwitting\nthe Government--derive absolute pleasure from getting in a few\nclothes and gloves and shawls without the payment of duty. Thousands\nof people buy things in Europe for which they pay more than they\nwould for the same things in America, and then exercise their\ningenuity in slipping them through the custom-house.\n\nA law to have real force must spring from the nature of things,\nand the justice of this law must be generally perceived, otherwise\nit will be evaded.\n\nThe temperance people themselves are playing into the hands of the\nvery party that would refuse to count their votes. Allow the\nDemocrats to remain in power, allow the Democrats to be controlled\nby the South, and a large majority might be in favor of temperance\nlegislation, and yet the votes would remain uncounted. The party\nof reform has a great interest in honest elections, and honest\nelections must first be obtained as the foundation of reform. The\nProhibitionists can take their choice between these parties. Would\nit not be far better for the Prohibitionists to say: \"We will vote\nfor temperance men; we will stand with the party that is the nearest\nin favor of what we deem to be the right\"? They should also take\ninto consideration that other people are as honest as they; that\nothers disbelieve in prohibition as honestly as they believe in\nit, and that other people cannot leave their principles to vote\nfor prohibition; and they must remember, that these other people\nare in the majority.\n\nMr. Fisk knows that he cannot be elected President--knows that it\nis impossible for him to carry any State in the Union. He also\nknows that in nearly every State in the Union--probably in all--a\nmajority of the people believe in stimulants. Why not work with\nthe great and enlightened majority? Why rush to the extreme for\nthe purpose not only of making yourself useless but hurtful?\n\nNo man in the world is more opposed to intemperance than I am. No\nman in the world feels more keenly the evils and the agony produced\nby the crime of drunkenness. And yet I would not be willing to\nsacrifice liberty, individuality, and the glory and greatness of\nindividual freedom, to do away with all the evils of intemperance.\nIn other words, I believe that slavery, oppression and suppression\nwould crowd humanity into a thousand deformities, the result of\nwhich would be a thousand times more disastrous to the well-being\nof man. I do not believe in the slave virtues, in the monotony of\ntyranny, in the respectability produced by force. I admire the\nmen who have grown in the atmosphere of liberty, who have the pose\nof independence, the virtues of strength, of heroism, and in whose\nhearts is the magnanimity, the tenderness, and the courage born of\nvictory.\n\n--_New York World_, October 21, 1888.\n\n\nROBERT ELSMERE.\n\nWhy do people read a book like \"Robert Elsmere,\" and why do they\ntake any interest in it? Simply because they are not satisfied\nwith the religion of our day. The civilized world has outgrown\nthe greater part of the Christian creed. Civilized people have\nlost their belief in the reforming power of punishment. They find\nthat whips and imprisonment have but little influence for good.\nThe truth has dawned upon their minds that eternal punishment is\ninfinite cruelty--that it can serve no good purpose and that the\neternity of hell makes heaven impossible. That there can be in\nthis universe no perfectly happy place while there is a perfectly\nmiserable place--that no infinite being can be good who knowingly\nand, as one may say, willfully created myriads of human beings,\nknowing that they would be eternally miserable. In other words,\nthe civilized man is greater, tenderer, nobler, nearer just than\nthe old idea of God. The ideal of a few thousand years ago is far\nbelow the real of to-day. No good man now would do what Jehovah\nis said to have done four thousand years ago, and no civilized\nhuman being would now do what, according to the Christian religion,\nChrist threatens to do at the day of judgment.\n\n_Question_. Has the Christian religion changed in theory of late\nyears, Colonel Ingersoll?\n\n_Answer_. A few years ago the Deists denied the inspiration of\nthe Bible on account of its cruelty. At the same time they worshiped\nwhat they were pleased to call the God of Nature. Now we are\nconvinced that Nature is as cruel as the Bible; so that, if the\nGod of Nature did not write the Bible, this God at least has caused\nearthquakes and pestilence and famine, and this God has allowed\nmillions of his children to destroy one another. So that now we\nhave arrived at the question--not as to whether the Bible is inspired\nand not as to whether Jehovah is the real God, but whether there\nis a God or not. The intelligence of Christendom to-day does not\nbelieve in an inspired art or an inspired literature. If there be\nan infinite God, inspiration in some particular regard would be a\npatch--it would be the puttying of a crack, the hiding of a defect\n--in other words, it would show that the general plan was defective.\n\n_Question_. Do you consider any religion adequate?\n\n_Answer_. A good man, living in England, drawing a certain salary\nfor reading certain prayers on stated occasions, for making a few\nremarks on the subject of religion, putting on clothes of a certain\ncut, wearing a gown with certain frills and flounces starched in\nan orthodox manner, and then looking about him at the suffering\nand agony of the world, would not feel satisfied that he was doing\nanything of value for the human race. In the first place, he would\ndeplore his own weakness, his own poverty, his inability to help\nhis fellow-men. He would long every moment for wealth, that he\nmight feed the hungry and clothe the naked--for knowledge, for\nmiraculous power, that he might heal the sick and the lame and that\nhe might give to the deformed the beauty of proportion. He would\nbegin to wonder how a being of infinite goodness and infinite power\ncould allow his children to die, to suffer, to be deformed by\nnecessity, by poverty, to be tempted beyond resistance; how he\ncould allow the few to live in luxury, and the many in poverty and\nwant, and the more he wondered the more useless and ironical would\nseem to himself his sermons and his prayers. Such a man is driven\nto the conclusion that religion accomplishes but little--that it\ncreates as much want as it alleviates, and that it burdens the\nworld with parasites. Such a man would be forced to think of the\nmillions wasted in superstition. In other words, the inadequacy,\nthe uselessness of religion would be forced upon his mind. He\nwould ask himself the question: \"Is it possible that this is a\ndivine institution? Is this all that man can do with the assistance\nof God? Is this the best?\"\n\n_Question_. That is a perfectly reasonable question, is it not,\nColonel Ingersoll?\n\n_Answer_. The moment a man reaches the point where he asks himself\nthis question he has ceased to be an orthodox Christian. It will\nnot do to say that in some other world justice will be done. If\nGod allows injustice to triumph here, why not there?\n\nRobert Elsmere stands in the dawn of philosophy. There is hardly\nlight enough for him to see clearly; but there is so much light\nthat the stars in the night of superstition are obscured.\n\n_Question_. You do not deny that a religious belief is a comfort?\n\n_Answer_. There is one thing that it is impossible for me to\ncomprehend. Why should any one, when convinced that Christianity\nis a superstition, have or feel a sense of loss? Certainly a man\nacquainted with England, with London, having at the same time\nsomething like a heart, must feel overwhelmed by the failure of\nwhat is known as Christianity. Hundreds of thousands exist there\nwithout decent food, dwelling in tenements, clothed with rags,\nfamiliar with every form of vulgar vice, where the honest poor eat\nthe crust that the vicious throw away. When this man of intelligence,\nof heart, visits the courts; when he finds human liberty a thing\ntreated as of no value, and when he hears the judge sentencing\ngirls and boys to the penitentiary--knowing that a stain is being\nput upon them that all the tears of all the coming years can never\nwash away--knowing, too, and feeling that this is done without the\nslightest regret, without the slightest sympathy, as a mere matter\nof form, and that the judge puts this brand of infamy upon the\nforehead of the convict just as cheerfully as a Mexican brands his\ncattle; and when this man of intelligence and heart knows that\nthese poor people are simply the victims of society, the unfortunates\nwho stumble and over whose bodies rolls the Juggernaut--he knows\nthat there is, or at least appears to be, no power above or below\nworking for righteousness--that from the heavens is stretched no\nprotecting hand. And when a man of intelligence and heart in\nEngland visits the workhouse, the last resting place of honest\nlabor; when he thinks that the young man, without any great\nintelligence, but with a good constitution, starts in the morning\nof his life for the workhouse, and that it is impossible for the\nlaboring man, one who simply has his muscle, to save anything; that\nhealth is not able to lay anything by for the days of disease--when\nthe man of intelligence and heart sees all this, he is compelled\nto say that the civilization of to-day, the religion of to-day,\nthe charity of to-day--no matter how much of good there may be\nbehind them or in them, are failures.\n\nA few years ago people were satisfied when the minister said: \"All\nthis will be made even in another world; a crust-eater here will\nsit at the head of the banquet there, and the king here will beg\nfor the crumbs that fall from the table there.\" When this was\nsaid, the poor man hoped and the king laughed. A few years ago\nthe church said to the slave: \"You will be free in another world,\nand your freedom will be made glorious by the perpetual spectacle\nof your master in hell.\" But the people--that is, many of the\npeople--are no longer deceived by what once were considered fine\nphrases. They have suffered so much that they no longer wish to\nsee others suffer and no longer think of the suffering of others\nas a source of joy to themselves. The poor see that the eternal\nstarvation of kings and queens in another world will be no compensation\nfor what they have suffered there. The old religions appear vulgar\nand the ideas of rewards and punishments are only such as would\nsatisfy a cannibal chief or one of his favorites.\n\n_Question_. Do you think the Christian religion has made the world\nbetter?\n\n_Answer_. For many centuries there has been preached and taught\nin an almost infinite number of ways a supernatural religion.\nDuring all this time the world has been in the care of the Infinite,\nand yet every imaginable vice has flourished, every imaginable pang\nhas been suffered, and every injustice has been done. During all\nthese years the priests have enslaved the minds, and the kings the\nbodies, of men. The priests did what they did in the name of God,\nand the kings appeal to the same source of authority. Man suffered\nas long as he could. Revolution, reformation, was simply a re-\naction, a cry from the poor wretch that was between the upper and\nthe nether millstone. The liberty of man has increased just in\nthe proportion that the authority of the gods has decreased. In\nother words, the wants of man, instead of the wishes of God, have\ninaugurated what we call progress, and there is this difference:\nTheology is based upon the narrowest and intensest form of selfishness.\nOf course, the theologian knows, the Christian knows, that he can\ndo nothing for God; consequently all that he does must be and is\nfor himself, his object being to win the approbation of this God,\nto the end that he may become a favorite. On the other side, men\ntouched not only by their own misfortunes, but by the misfortunes\nof others, are moved not simply by selfishness, but by a splendid\nsympathy with their fellow-men.\n\n_Question_. Christianity certainly fosters charity?\n\n_Answer_. Nothing is more cruel than orthodox theology, nothing\nmore heartless than a charitable institution. For instance, in\nEngland, think for a moment of the manner in which charities are\ndistributed, the way in which the crust is flung at Lazarus. If\nthat parable could be now retold, the dogs would bite him. The\nsame is true in this country. The institution has nothing but\ncontempt for the one it relieves. The people in charge regard the\npauper as one who has wrecked himself. They feel very much as a\nman would feel rescuing from the water some hare-brained wretch\nwho had endeavored to swim the rapids of Niagara--the moment they\nreach him they begin to upbraid him for being such a fool. This\ncourse makes charity a hypocrite, with every pauper for its enemy.\n\nMrs. Ward compelled Robert Elsmere to perceive, in some slight\ndegree, the failure of Christianity to do away with vice and\nsuffering, with poverty and crime. We know that the rich care but\nlittle for the poor. No matter how religious the rich may be, the\nsufferings of their fellows have but little effect upon them. We\nare also beginning to see that what is called charity will never\nredeem this world.\n\nThe poor man willing to work, eager to maintain his independence,\nknows that there is something higher than charity--that is to say,\njustice. He finds that many years before he was born his country\nwas divided out between certain successful robbers, flatterers,\ncringers and crawlers, and that in consequence of such division\nnot only he himself, but a large majority of his fellow-men are\ntenants, renters, occupying the surface of the earth only at the\npleasure of others. He finds, too, that these people who have done\nnothing and who do nothing, have everything, and that those who do\neverything have but little. He finds that idleness has the money\nand that the toilers are compelled to bow to the idlers. He finds\nalso that the young men of genius are bribed by social distinctions\n--unconsciously it may be--but still bribed in a thousand ways.\nHe finds that the church is a kind of waste-basket into which are\nthrown the younger sons of titled idleness.\n\n_Question_. Do you consider that society in general has been made\nbetter by religious influences?\n\n_Answer_. Society is corrupted because the laurels, the titles,\nare in the keeping and within the gift of the corrupters. Christianity\nis not an enemy of this system--it is in harmony with it. Christianity\nreveals to us a universe presided over by an infinite autocrat--a\nuniverse without republicanism, without democracy--a universe where\nall power comes from one and the same source, and where everyone\nusing authority is accountable, not to the people, but to this\nsupposed source of authority. Kings reign by divine right. Priests\nare ordained in a divinely appointed way--they do not get their\noffice from man. Man is their servant, not their master.\n\nIn the story of Robert Elsmere all there is of Christianity is left\nexcept the miraculous. Theism remains, and the idea of a protecting\nProvidence is left, together with a belief in the immeasurable\nsuperiority of Jesus Christ. That is to say, the miracles are\ndiscarded for lack of evidence, and only for lack of evidence; not\non the ground that they are impossible, not on the ground that they\nimpeach and deny the integrity of cause and effect, not on the\nground that they contradict the self-evident proposition that an\neffect must have an efficient cause, but like the Scotch verdict,\n\"not proven.\" It is an effort to save and keep in repair the\ndungeons of the Inquisition for the sake of the beauty of the vines\nthat have overrun them. Many people imagine that falsehoods may\nbecome respectable on account of age, that a certain reverence goes\nwith antiquity, and that if a mistake is covered with the moss of\nsentiment it is altogether more credible than a parvenu fact. They\nendeavor to introduce the idea of aristocracy into the world of\nthought, believing, and honestly believing, that a falsehood long\nbelieved is far superior to a truth that is generally denied.\n\n_Question_. If Robert Elsmere's views were commonly adopted what\nwould be the effect?\n\n_Answer_. The new religion of Elsmere is, after all, only a system\nof outdoor relief, an effort to get successful piracy to give up\na larger per cent. for the relief of its victims. The abolition\nof the system is not dreamed of. A civilized minority could not\nby any possibility be happy while a majority of the world were\nmiserable. A civilized majority could not be happy while a minority\nwere miserable. As a matter of fact, a civilized world could not\nbe happy while one man was really miserable. At the foundation of\ncivilization is justice--that is to say, the giving of an equal\nopportunity to all the children of men. Secondly, there can be no\ncivilization in the highest sense until sympathy becomes universal.\nWe must have a new definition for success. We must have new ideals.\nThe man who succeeds in amassing wealth, who gathers money for\nhimself, is not a success. It is an exceedingly low ambition to\nbe rich to excite the envy of others, or for the sake of the vulgar\npower it gives to triumph over others. Such men are failures. So\nthe man who wins fame, position, power, and wins these for the sake\nof himself, and wields this power not for the elevation of his\nfellow-men, but simply to control, is a miserable failure. He may\ndispense thousands of millions in charity, and his charity may be\nprompted by the meanest part of his nature--using it simply as a\nbait to catch more fish and to prevent the rising tide of indignation\nthat might overwhelm him. Men who steal millions and then give a\nsmall percentage to the Lord to gain the praise of the clergy and\nto bring the salvation of their souls within the possibilities of\nimagination, are all failures.\n\nRobert Elsmere gains our affection and our applause to the extent\nthat he gives up what are known as orthodox views, and his wife\nCatherine retains our respect in the proportion that she lives the\ndoctrine that Elsmere preaches. By doing what she believes to be\nright, she gains our forgiveness for her creed. One is astonished\nthat she can be as good as she is, believing as she does. The\nutmost stretch of our intellectual charity is to allow the old wine\nto be put in a new bottle, and yet she regrets the absence of the\nold bottle--she really believes that the bottle is the important\nthing--that the wine is but a secondary consideration. She misses\nthe label, and not having perfect confidence in her own taste, she\ndoes not feel quite sure that the wine is genuine.\n\n_Question_. What, on the whole, is your judgment of the book?\n\n_Answer_. I think the book conservative. It is an effort to save\nsomething--a few shreds and patches and ravelings--from the wreck.\nTheism is difficult to maintain. Why should we expect an infinite\nBeing to do better in another world than he has done and is doing\nin this? If he allows the innocent to suffer here, why not there?\nIf he allows rascality to succeed in this world, why not in the\nnext? To believe in God and to deny his personality is an exceedingly\nvague foundation for a consolation. If you insist on his personality\nand power, then it is impossible to account for what happens. Why\nshould an infinite God allow some of his children to enslave others?\nWhy should he allow a child of his to burn another child of his,\nunder the impression that such a sacrifice was pleasing to him?\n\nUnitarianism lacks the motive power. Orthodox people who insist\nthat nearly everybody is going to hell, and that it is their duty\nto do what little they can to save their souls, have what you might\ncall a spur to action. We can imagine a philanthropic man engaged\nin the business of throwing ropes to persons about to go over the\nfalls of Niagara, but we can hardly think of his carrying on the\nbusiness after being convinced that there are no falls, or that\npeople go over them in perfect safety. In this country the question\nhas come up whether all the heathen are bound to be damned unless\nthey believe in the gospel. Many admit that the heathen will be\nsaved if they are good people, and that they will not be damned\nfor not believing something that they never heard. The really\northodox people--that is to say, the missionaries--instantly see\nthat this doctrine destroys their business. They take the ground\nthat there is but one way to be saved--you must believe on the Lord\nJesus Christ--and they are willing to admit, and cheerfully to\nadmit, that the heathen for many generations have gone in an unbroken\ncolumn down to eternal wrath. And they not only admit this, but\ninsist upon it, to the end that subscriptions may not cease. With\nthem salary and salvation are convertible terms.\n\nThe tone of this book is not of the highest. Too much stress is\nlaid upon social advantages--too much respect for fashionable folly\nand for ancient absurdity. It is hard for me to appreciate the\nfeelings of one who thinks it difficult to give up the consolations\nof the gospel. What are the consolations of the Church of England?\nIt is a religion imposed upon the people by authority. It is the\ngospel at the mouth of a cannon, at the point of a bayonet, enforced\nby all authority, from the beadle to the Queen. It is a parasite\nliving upon tithes--these tithes being collected by the army and\nnavy. It produces nothing--is simply a beggar--or rather an\naggregation of beggars. It teaches nothing of importance. It\ndiscovers nothing. It is under obligation not to investigate. It\nhas agreed to remain stationary not only, but to resist all\ninnovation. According to the creed of this church, a very large\nproportion of the human race is destined to suffer eternal pain.\nThis does not interfere with the quiet, with the serenity and repose\nof the average clergyman. They put on their gowns, they read the\nservice, they repeat the creed and feel that their duty has been\ndone. How any one can feel that he is giving up something of value\nwhen he finds that the Episcopal creed is untrue is beyond my\nimagination. I should think that every good man and woman would\noverflow with joy, that every heart would burst into countless\nblossoms the moment the falsity of the Episcopal creed was\nestablished.\n\nChristianity is the most heartless of all religions--the most\nunforgiving, the most revengeful. According to the Episcopalian\nbelief, God becomes the eternal prosecutor of his own children.\nI know of no creed believed by any tribe, not excepting the tribes\nwhere cannibalism is practiced, that is more heartless, more inhuman\nthan this. To find that the creed is false is like being roused\nfrom a frightful dream, in which hundreds of serpents are coiled\nabout you, in which their eyes, gleaming with hatred, are fixed on\nyou, and finding the world bathed in sunshine and the songs of\nbirds in your ears and those you love about you.\n\n--_New York World_, November 18, 1888.\n\n\nWORKING GIRLS.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of the work undertaken by the\n_World_ in behalf of the city slave girl?\n\n_Answer_. I know of nothing better for a great journal to do.\nThe average girl is so helpless, and the greed of the employer is\nsuch, that unless some newspaper or some person of great influence\ncomes to her assistance, she is liable not simply to be imposed\nupon, but to be made a slave. Girls, as a rule, are so anxious to\nplease, so willing to work, that they bear almost every hardship\nwithout complaint. Nothing is more terrible than to see the rich\nliving on the work of the poor. One can hardly imagine the utter\nheartlessness of a man who stands between the wholesale manufacturer\nand the wretched women who make their living--or rather retard\ntheir death--by the needle. How a human being can consent to live\non this profit, stolen from poverty, is beyond my imagination.\nThese men, when known, will be regarded as hyenas and jackals.\nThey are like the wild beasts which follow herds of cattle for the\npurpose of devouring those that are injured or those that have\nfallen by the wayside from weakness.\n\n_Question_. What effect has unlimited immigration on the wages of\nwomen?\n\n_Answer_. If our country were overpopulated, the effect of\nimmigration would be to lessen wages, for the reason that the\nworking people of Europe are used to lower wages, and have been in\nthe habit of practicing an economy unknown to us. But this country\nis not overpopulated. There is plenty of room for several hundred\nmillions more. Wages, however, are too low in the United States.\nThe general tendency is to leave the question of labor to what is\ncalled the law of supply and demand. My hope is that in time we\nshall become civilized enough to know that there is a higher law,\nor rather a higher meaning in the law of supply and demand, than\nis now perceived. Year after year what are called the necessaries\nof life increase. Many things now regarded as necessaries were\nformerly looked upon as luxuries. So, as man becomes civilized, he\nincreases what may be called the necessities of his life. When\nperfectly civilized, one of the necessities of his life will be\nthat the lives of others shall be of some value to them. A good\nman is not happy so long as he knows that other good men and women\nsuffer for raiment and for food, and have no roof but the sky, no\nhome but the highway. Consequently what is called the law of supply\nand demand will then have a much larger meaning.\n\nIn nature everything lives upon something else. Life feeds upon\nlife. Something is lying in wait for something else, and even the\nvictim is weaving a web or crouching for some other victim, and\nthe other victim is in the same business--watching for something\nelse. The same is true in the human world--people are living on\neach other; the cunning obtain the property of the simple; wealth\npicks the pockets of poverty; success is a highwayman leaping from\nthe hedge. The rich combine, the poor are unorganized, without\nthe means to act in concert, and for that reason become the prey\nof combinations and trusts. The great questions are: Will man\never be sufficiently civilized to be honest? Will the time ever\ncome when it can truthfully be said that right is might? The lives\nof millions of people are not worth living, because of their\nignorance and poverty, and the lives of millions of others are not\nworth living, on account of their wealth and selfishness. The\npalace without justice, without charity, is as terrible as the\nhovel without food.\n\n_Question_. What effect has the woman's suffrage movement had on\nthe breadwinners of the country?\n\n_Answer_. I think the women who have been engaged in the struggle\nfor equal rights have done good for women in the direction of\nobtaining equal wages for equal work. There has also been for many\nyears a tendency among women in our country to become independent\n--a desire to make their own living--to win their own bread. So\nmany husbands are utterly useless, or worse, that many women hardly\nfeel justified in depending entirely on a husband for the future.\nThey feel somewhat safer to know how to do something and earn a\nlittle money themselves. If men were what they ought to be, few\nwomen would be allowed to labor--that is to say, to toil. It should\nbe the ambition of every healthy and intelligent man to take care\nof, to support, to make happy, some woman. As long as women bear\nthe burdens of the world, the human race can never attain anything\nlike a splendid civilization. There will be no great generation\nof men until there has been a great generation of women. For my\npart, I am glad to hear this question discussed--glad to know that\nthousands of women take some interest in the fortunes and in the\nmisfortunes of their sisters.\n\nThe question of wages for women is a thousand times more important\nthan sending missionaries to China or to India. There is plenty\nfor missionaries to do here. And by missionaries I do not mean\ngentlemen and ladies who distribute tracts or quote Scripture to\npeople out of work. If we are to better the condition of men and\nwomen we must change their surroundings. The tenement house breeds\na moral pestilence. There can be in these houses no home, no\nfireside, no family, for the reason that there is no privacy, no\nwalls between them and the rest of the world. There is no sacredness,\nno feeling, \"this is ours.\"\n\n_Question_. Might not the rich do much?\n\n_Answer_. It would be hard to overestimate the good that might be\ndone by the millionaires if they would turn their attention to\nsending thousands and thousands into the country or to building\nthem homes miles from the city, where they could have something\nlike privacy, where the family relations could be kept with some\nsacredness. Think of the \"homes\" in which thousands and thousands\nof young girls are reared in our large cities. Think of what they\nsee and what they hear; of what they come in contact with. How is\nit possible for the virtues to grow in the damp and darkened\nbasements? Can we expect that love and chastity and all that is\nsweet and gentle will be produced in these surroundings, in cellars\nand garrets, in poverty and dirt? The surroundings must be changed.\n\n_Question_. Are the fathers and brothers blameless who allow young\ngirls to make coats, cloaks and vests in an atmosphere poisoned by\nthe ignorant and low-bred?\n\n_Answer_. The same causes now brutalizing girls brutalize their\nfathers and brothers, and the same causes brutalize the ignorant\nand low-lived that poison the air in which these girls are made to\nwork. It is hard to pick out one man and say that he is to blame,\nor one woman and say that the fault is hers. We must go back of\nall this. In my opinion, society raises its own failures, its own\ncriminals, its own wretches of every sort and kind. Great pains\nare taken to raise these crops. The seeds, it may be, were sown\nthousands of years ago, but they were sown, and the present is the\nnecessary child of all the past. If the future is to differ from\nthe present, the seeds must now be sown. It is not simply a question\nof charity, or a question of good nature, or a question of what we\ncall justice--it is a question of intelligence. In the first place,\nI suppose that it is the duty of every human being to support\nhimself--first, that he may not become a burden upon others, and\nsecond, that he may help others. I think all people should be\ntaught never, under any circumstances, if by any possibility they\ncan avoid it, to become a burden. Every one should be taught the\nnobility of labor, the heroism and splendor of honest effort. As\nlong as it is considered disgraceful to labor, or aristocratic not\nto labor, the world will be filled with idleness and crime, and\nwith every possible moral deformity.\n\n_Question_. Has the public school system anything to do with the\narmy of pupils who, after six years of study, willingly accept the\ninjustice and hardship imposed by capital?\n\n_Answer_. The great trouble with the public school is that many\nthings are taught that are of no immediate use. I believe in manual\ntraining schools. I believe in the kindergarten system. Every\nperson ought to be taught how to do something--ought to be taught\nthe use of their hands. They should endeavor to put in palpable\nform the ideas that they gain. Such an education gives them a\nconfidence in themselves, a confidence in the future--gives them\na spirit and feeling of independence that they do not now have.\nMen go through college studying for many years, and when graduated\nhave not the slightest conception of how to make a living in any\ndepartment of human effort. Thousands of them are to-day doing\nmanual labor and doing it very poorly, whereas, if they had been\ntaught the use of tools, the use of their hands, they would derive\na certain pleasure from their work. It is splendid to do anything\nwell. One can be just as poetic working with iron and wood as\nworking with words and colors.\n\n_Question_. What ought to be done, or what is to be the end?\n\n_Answer_. The great thing is for the people to know the facts.\nThere are thousands and millions of splendid and sympathetic people\nwho would willingly help, if they only knew; but they go through\nthe world in such a way that they know but little of it. They go\nto their place of business; they stay in their offices for a few\nhours; they go home; they spend the evening there or at a club;\nthey come in contact with the well-to-do, with the successful, with\nthe satisfied, and they know nothing of the thousands and millions\non every side. They have not the least idea how the world lives,\nhow it works, how it suffers. They read, of course, now and then,\nsome paragraph in which the misfortune of some wretch is set forth,\nbut the wretch is a kind of steel engraving, an unreal shadow, a\nsomething utterly unlike themselves. The real facts should be\nbrought home, the sympathies of men awakened, and awakened to such\na degree that they will go and see how these people live, see how\nthey work, see how they suffer.\n\n_Question_. Does exposure do any good?\n\n_Answer_. I hope that _The World_ will keep on. I hope that it\nwill express every horror that it can, connected with the robbery\nof poor and helpless girls, and I hope that it will publish the\nnames of all the robbers it can find, and the wretches who oppress\nthe poor and who live upon the misfortunes of women.\n\nThe crosses of this world are mostly born by wives, by mothers and\nby daughters. Their brows are pierced by thorns. They shed the\nbitterest tears. They live and suffer and die for others. It is\nalmost enough to make one insane to think of what woman, in the\nyears of savagery and civilization, has suffered. Think of the\nanxiety and agony of motherhood. Maternity is the most pathetic\nfact in the universe. Think how helpless girls are. Think of the\nthorns in the paths they walk--of the trials, the temptations, the\nwant, the misfortune, the dangers and anxieties that fill their\ndays and nights. Every true man will sympathize with woman, and\nwill do all in his power to lighten her burdens and increase the\nsunshine of her life.\n\n_Question_. Is there any remedy?\n\n_Answer_. I have always wondered that the great corporations have\nmade no provisions for their old and worn out employees. It seems\nto me that not only great railway companies, but great manufacturing\ncorporations, ought to provide for their workmen. Many of them\nare worn out, unable longer to work, and they are thrown aside like\nold clothes. They find their way to the poorhouses or die in\ntenements by the roadside. This seems almost infinitely heartless.\nMen of great wealth, engaged in manufacturing, instead of giving\nfive hundred thousand dollars for a library, or a million dollars\nfor a college, ought to put this money aside, invest it in bonds\nof the Government, and the interest ought to be used in taking care\nof the old, of the helpless, of those who meet with accidents in\ntheir work. Under our laws, if an employee is caught in a wheel\nor in a band, and his arm or leg is torn off, he is left to the\ncharity of the community, whereas the profits of the business ought\nto support him in his old age. If employees had this feeling--that\nthey were not simply working for that day, not simply working while\nthey have health and strength, but laying aside a little sunshine\nfor the winter of age--if they only felt that they, by their labor,\nwere creating a fireside in front of which their age and helplessness\ncould sit, the feeling between employed and employers would be a\nthousand times better. On the great railways very few people know\nthe number of the injured, of those who lose their hands or feet,\nof those who contract diseases riding on the tops of freight trains\nin snow and sleet and storm; and yet, when these men become old\nand helpless through accident, they are left to shift for themselves.\nThe company is immortal, but the employees become helpless. Now,\nit seems to me that a certain per cent. should be laid aside, so\nthat every brakeman and conductor could feel that he was providing\nfor himself, as well as for his fellow-workmen, so that when the\ndark days came there would be a little light.\n\nThe men of wealth, the men who control these great corporations--\nthese great mills--give millions away in ostentatious charity.\nThey send missionaries to foreign lands. They endow schools and\nuniversities and allow the men who earned the surplus to die in\nwant. I believe in no charity that is founded on robbery. I have\nno admiration for generous highwaymen or extravagant pirates. At\nthe foundation of charity should be justice. Let these men whom\nothers have made wealthy give something to their workmen--something\nto those who created their fortunes. This would be one step in\nthe right direction. Do not let it be regarded as charity--let it\nbe regarded as justice.\n\n--_New York World_, December 2, 1888.\n\n\nPROTECTION FOR AMERICAN ACTORS.\n\n_Question_. It is reported that you have been retained as counsel\nfor the Actors' Order of Friendship--the Edwin Forrest Lodge of\nNew York, and the Shakespeare Lodge of Philadelphia--for the purpose\nof securing the necessary legislation to protect American actors--\nis that so?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, I have been retained for that purpose, and the\nobject is simply that American actors may be put upon an equal\nfooting with Americans engaged in other employments. There is a\nlaw now which prevents contractors going abroad and employing\nmechanics or skilled workmen, and bringing them to this country to\ntake the places of our citizens.\n\nNo one objects to the English, German and French mechanics coming\nwith their wives and children to this country and making their\nhomes here. Our ports are open, and have been since the foundation\nof this Government. Wages are somewhat higher in this country than\nin any other, and the man who really settles here, who becomes, or\nintends to become an American citizen, will demand American wages.\nBut if a manufacturer goes to Europe, he can make a contract there\nand bring hundreds and thousands of mechanics to this country who\nwill work for less wages than the American, and a law was passed\nto prevent the American manufacturer, who was protected by a tariff,\nfrom burning the laborer's candle at both ends. That is to say,\nwe do not wish to give him the American price, by means of a tariff,\nand then allow him to go to Europe and import his labor at the\nEuropean price.\n\nIn the law, actors were excepted, and we now find the managers are\nbringing entire companies from the old county, making contracts\nwith them there, and getting them at much lower prices than they\nwould have had to pay for American actors.\n\nNo one objects to a foreign actor coming here for employment, but\nwe do not want an American manager to go there, and employ him to\nact here. No one objects to the importation of a star. We wish\nto see and hear the best actors in the world. But the rest of the\ncompany--the support--should be engaged in the United States, if\nthe star speaks English.\n\nI see that it is contended over in England, that English actors\nare monopolizing the American stage because they speak English,\nwhile the average American actor does not. The real reason is that\nthe English actor works for less money--he is the cheaper article.\nCertainly no one will accuse the average English actor of speaking\nEnglish. The hemming and hawing, the aristocratic stutter, the\ndropping of h's and picking them up at the wrong time, have never\nbeen popular in the United States, except by way of caricature.\nNothing is more absurd than to take the ground that the English\nactors are superior to the American. I know of no English actor\nwho can for a moment be compared with Joseph Jefferson, or with\nEdwin Booth, or with Lawrence Barrett, or with Denman Thompson,\nand I could easily name others.\n\nIf English actors are so much better than American, how is it that\nan American star is supported by the English? Mary Anderson is\ncertainly an American actress, and she is supported by English\nactors. Is it possible that the superior support the inferior?\nI do not believe that England has her equal as an actress. Her\nHermione is wonderful, and the appeal to Apollo sublime. In Perdita\nshe \"takes the winds of March with beauty.\" Where is an actress\non the English stage the superior of Julia Marlowe in genius, in\noriginality, in naturalness?\n\nIs there any better Mrs. Malaprop than Mrs. Drew, and better Sir\nAnthony than John Gilbert? No one denies that the English actors\nand actresses are great. No one will deny that the plays of\nShakespeare are the greatest that have been produced, and no one\nwishes in any way to belittle the genius of the English people.\n\nIn this country the average person speaks fairly good English, and\nyou will find substantially the same English spoken in most of the\ncountry; whereas in England there is a different dialect in almost\nevery county, and most of the English people speak the language as\nif was not their native tongue. I think it will be admitted that\nthe English write a good deal better than they speak, and that\ntheir pronunciation is not altogether perfect.\n\nThese things, however, are not worth speaking of. There is no\nabsolute standard. They speak in the way that is natural to them,\nand we in the way that is natural to us. This difference furnishes\nno foundation for a claim of general superiority. The English\nactors are not brought here on account of their excellence, but on\naccount of their cheapness. It requires no great ability to play\nthe minor parts, or the leading roles in some plays, for that\nmatter. And yet acting is a business, a profession, a means of\ngetting bread.\n\nWe protect our mechanics and makers of locomotives and of all other\narticles. Why should we not protect, by the same means, the actor?\nYou may say that we can get along without actors. So we can get\nalong without painters, without sculptors and without poets. But\na nation that gets along without these people of genius amounts to\nbut little. We can do without music, without players and without\ncomposers; but when we take art and poetry and music and the theatre\nout of the world, it becomes an exceedingly dull place.\n\nActors are protected and cared for in proportion that people are\ncivilized. If the people are intelligent, educated, and have\nimaginations, they enjoy the world of the stage, the creations of\npoets, and they are thrilled by great music, and, as a consequence,\nrespect the dramatist, the actor and the musician.\n\n_Question_. It is claimed that an amendment to the law, such as\nis desired, will interfere with the growth of art?\n\n_Answer_. No one is endeavoring to keep stars from this country.\nIf they have American support, and the stars really know anything,\nthe American actors will get the benefit. If they bring their\nsupport with them, the American actor is not particularly benefitted,\nand the star, when the season is over, takes his art and his money\nwith him.\n\nManagers who insist on employing foreign support are not sacrificing\nanything for art. Their object is to make money. They care nothing\nfor the American actor--nothing for the American drama. They look\nfor the receipts. It is the sheerest cant to pretend that they\nare endeavoring to protect art.\n\nOn the 26th of February, 1885, a law was passed making it unlawful\n\"for any person, company, partnership or corporation, in any manner\nwhatsoever, to prepay the transportation, or in any way assist or\nencourage the importation or emigration of any alien or aliens into\nthe United States, under contract or agreement, parol or special,\nprevious to the importation or emigration of such aliens to perform\nlabor or services of any kind the United States.\"\n\nBy this act it was provided that its provisions should not apply\nto professional actors, artists, lecturers or singers, in regard\nto persons employed strictly as personal or domestic servants.\nThe object now in view is so to amend the law that its provision\nshall apply to all actors except stars.\n\n_Question_. In this connection there has been so much said about\nthe art of acting--what is your idea as to that art?\n\n_Answer_. Above all things in acting, there must be proportion.\nThere are no miracles in art or nature. All that is done--every\ninflection and gesture--must be in perfect harmony with the\ncircumstances. Sensationalism is based on deformity, and bears\nthe same relation to proportion that caricature does to likeness.\n\nThe stream that flows even with its banks, making the meadows green,\ndelights us ever; the one that overflows surprises for a moment.\nBut we do not want a succession of floods.\n\nIn acting there must be natural growth, not sudden climax. The\natmosphere of the situation, the relation sustained to others,\nshould produce the emotions. Nothing should be strained. Beneath\ndomes there should be buildings, and buildings should have foundations.\nThere must be growth. There should be the bud, the leaf, the\nflower, in natural sequence. There must be no leap from naked\nbranches to the perfect fruit.\n\nMost actors depend on climax--they save themselves for the supreme\nexplosion. The scene opens with a slow match and ends when the\nspark reaches the dynamite. So, most authors fill the first act\nwith contradictions and the last with explanations. Plots and\ncounter-plots, violence and vehemence, perfect saints and perfect\nvillains--that is to say, monsters, impelled by improbable motives,\nmeet upon the stage, where they are pushed and pulled for the sake\nof the situation, and where everything is so managed that the fire\nreaches the powder and the explosion is the climax.\n\nThere is neither time, nor climate, nor soil, in which the emotions\nand intentions may grow. No land is plowed, no seed is sowed, no\nrain falls, no light glows--the events are all orphans.\n\nNo one would enjoy a sudden sunset--we want the clouds of gold that\nfloat in the azure sea. No one would enjoy a sudden sunrise--we\nare in love with the morning star, with the dawn that modestly\nheralds the day and draws aside, with timid hands, the curtains of\nthe night. In other words, we want sequence, proportion, logic,\nbeauty.\n\nThere are several actors in this country who are in perfect accord\nwith nature--who appear to make no effort--whose acting seems to\ngive them joy and rest. We do well what we do easily. It is a\ngreat mistake to exhaust yourself, instead of the subject. All\ngreat actors \"fill the stage\" because they hold the situation.\nYou see them and nothing else.\n\n_Question_. Speaking of American actors, Colonel, I believe you\nare greatly interested in the playing of Miss Marlowe, and have\ngiven your opinion of her as Parthenia; what do you think of her\nJulia and Viola?\n\n_Answer_. A little while ago I saw Miss Marlowe as Julia, in \"The\nHunchback.\" We must remember the limitations of the play. Nothing\ncan excel the simplicity, the joyous content of the first scene.\nNothing could be more natural than the excitement produced by the\nidea of leaving what you feel to be simple and yet good, for what\nyou think is magnificent, brilliant and intoxicating. It is only\nin youth that we are willing to make this exchange. One does not\nsee so clearly in the morning of life when the sun shines in his\neyes. In the afternoon, when the sun is behind him, he sees better\n--he is no longer dazzled. In old age we are not only willing,\nbut anxious, to exchange wealth and fame and glory and magnificence,\nfor simplicity. All the palaces are nothing compared with our\nlittle cabin, and all the flowers of the world are naught to the\nwild rose that climbs and blossoms by the lowly window of content.\n\nHappiness dwells in the valleys with the shadows.\n\nThe moment Julia is brought in contact with wealth, she longs for\nthe simple--for the true love of one true man. Wealth and station\nare mockeries. These feelings, these emotions, Miss Marlowe rendered\nnot only with look and voice and gesture, but with every pose of\nher body; and when assured that her nuptials with the Earl could\nbe avoided, the only question in her mind was as to the absolute\npreservation of her honor--not simply in fact, but in appearance,\nso that even hatred could not see a speck upon the shining shield\nof her perfect truth. In this scene she was perfect--everything\nwas forgotten except the desire to be absolutely true.\n\nSo in the scene with Master Walter, when he upbraids her for\nforgetting that she is about to meet her father, when excusing her\nforgetfulness on the ground that he has been to her a father.\nNothing could exceed the delicacy and tenderness of this passage.\nEvery attitude expressed love, gentleness, and a devotion even unto\ndeath. One felt that there could be no love left for the father\nshe expected to meet--Master Walter had it all.\n\nA greater Julia was never on the stage--one in whom so much passion\nmingled with so much purity. Miss Marlowe never \"o'ersteps the\nmodesty of nature.\" She maintains proportion. The river of her\nart flows even with the banks.\n\nIn Viola, we must remember the character--a girl just rescued from\nthe sea--disguised as a boy--employed by the Duke, whom she instantly\nloves--sent as his messenger to woo another for him--Olivia enamored\nof the messenger--forced to a duel--mistaken for her brother by\nthe Captain, and her brother taken for herself by Olivia--and yet,\nin the midst of these complications and disguises, she remains a\npure and perfect girl--these circumstances having no more real\neffect upon her passionate and subtle self than clouds on stars.\n\nWhen Malvolio follows and returns the ring the whole truth flashes\nupon her. She is in love with Orsino--this she knows. Olivia,\nshe believes, is in love with her. The edge of the situation, the\ndawn of this entanglement, excites her mirth. In this scene she\nbecomes charming--an impersonation of Spring. Her laughter is as\nnatural and musical as the song of a brook. So, in the scene with\nOlivia in which she cries, \"Make me a willow cabin at your gate!\"\nshe is the embodiment of grace, and her voice is as musical as the\nwords, and as rich in tone as they are in thought.\n\nIn the duel with Sir Andrew she shows the difference between the\ndelicacy of woman and the cowardice of man. She does the little\nthat she can, not for her own sake, but for the sake of her disguise\n--she feels that she owes something to her clothes.\n\nBut I have said enough about this actress to give you an idea of\none who is destined to stand first in her profession.\n\nWe will now come back to the real question. I am in favor of\nprotecting the American actor. I regard the theatre as the civilizer\nof man. All the arts united upon the stage, and the genius of the\nrace has been lavished on this mimic world.\n\n--_New York Star_, December 23, 1888.\n\n\nLIBERALS AND LIBERALISM.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the prospects of Liberalism in\nthis country?\n\n_Answer_. The prospects of Liberalism are precisely the same as\nthe prospects of civilization--that is to say, of progress. As\nthe people become educated, they become liberal. Bigotry is the\nprovincialism of the mind. Men are bigoted who are not acquainted\nwith the thoughts of others. They have been taught one thing, and\nhave been made to believe that their little mental horizon is the\ncircumference of all knowledge. The bigot lives in an ignorant\nvillage, surrounded by ignorant neighbors. This is the honest\nbigot. The dishonest bigot may know better, but he remains a bigot\nbecause his salary depends upon it. A bigot is like a country that\nhas had no commerce with any other. He imagines that in his little\nhead there is everything of value. When a man becomes an intellectual\nexplorer, an intellectual traveler, he begins to widen, to grow\nliberal. He finds that the ideas of others are as good as and often\nbetter than his own. The habits and customs of other people throw\nlight on his own, and by this light he is enabled to discover at\nleast some of his own mistakes. Now the world has become acquainted.\nA few years ago, a man knew something of the doctrines of his own\nchurch. Now he knows the creeds of others, and not only so, but\nhe has examined to some extent the religions of other nations. He\nfinds in other creeds all the excellencies that are in his own,\nand most of the mistakes. In this way he learns that all creeds\nhave been produced by men, and that their differences have been\naccounted for by race, climate, heredity--that is to say, by a\ndifference in circumstances. So we now know that the cause of\nLiberalism is the cause of civilization. Unless the race is to be\na failure, the cause of Liberalism must succeed. Consequently, I\nhave the same faith in that cause that I have in the human race.\n\n_Question_. Where are the most Liberals, and in what section of\nthe country is the best work for Liberalism being done?\n\n_Answer_. The most Liberals are in the most intelligent section\nof the United States. Where people think the most, there you will\nfind the most Liberals; where people think the least, you will find\nthe most bigots. Bigotry is produced by feeling--Liberalism by\nthinking--that is to say, the one is a prejudice, the other a\nprinciple. Every geologist, every astronomer, every scientist, is\ndoing a noble work for Liberalism. Every man who finds a fact,\nand demonstrates it, is doing work for the cause. All the literature\nof our time that is worth reading is on the liberal side. All the\nfiction that really interests the human mind is with us. No one\ncares to read the old theological works. Essays written by professors\nof theological colleges are regarded, even by Christians, with a\nkind of charitable contempt. When any demonstration of science is\nattacked by a creed, or a passage of Scripture, all the intelligent\nsmile. For these reasons I think that the best work for Liberalism\nis being done where the best work for science is being done--where\nthe best work for man is being accomplished. Every legislator that\nassists in the repeal of theological laws is doing a great work\nfor Liberalism.\n\n_Question_. In your opinion, what relation do Liberalism and\nProhibition bear to each other?\n\n_Answer_. I do not think they have anything to do with each other.\nThey have nothing in common except this: The Prohibitionists, I\npresume, are endeavoring to do what they can for temperance; so\nall intelligent Liberals are doing what they can for the cause of\ntemperance. The Prohibitionist endeavors to accomplish his object\nby legislation--the Liberalist by education, by civilization, by\nexample, by persuasion. The method of the Liberalist is good, that\nof the Prohibitionist chimerical and fanatical.\n\n_Question_. Do you think that Liberals should undertake a reform\nin the marriage and divorce laws and relations?\n\n_Answer_. I think that Liberals should do all in their power to\ninduce people to regard marriage and divorce in a sensible light,\nand without the slightest reference to any theological ideas. They\nshould use their influence to the end that marriage shall be\nconsidered as a contract--the highest and holiest that men and\nwomen can make. And they should also use their influence to have\nthe laws of divorce based on this fundamental idea,--that marriage\nis a contract. All should be done that can be done by law to uphold\nthe sacredness of this relation. All should be done that can be\ndone to impress upon the minds of all men and all women their duty\nto discharge all the obligations of the marriage contract faithfully\nand cheerfully. I do not believe that it is to the interest of\nthe State or of the Nation, that people should be compelled to live\ntogether who hate each other, or that a woman should be bound to\na man who has been false and who refuses to fulfill the contract\nof marriage. I do not believe that any man should call upon the\npolice, or upon the creeds, or upon the church, to compel his wife\nto remain under his roof, or to compel a woman against her will to\nbecome the mother of his children. In other words, Liberals should\nendeavor to civilize mankind, and when men and women are civilized,\nthe marriage question, and the divorce question, will be settled.\n\n_Question_. Should Liberals vote on Liberal issues?\n\n_Answer_. I think that, other things being anywhere near equal,\nLiberals should vote for men who believe in liberty, men who believe\nin giving to others the rights they claim for themselves--that is\nto say, for civilized men, for men of some breadth of mind. Liberals\nshould do what they can to do away with all the theological\nabsurdities.\n\n_Question_. Can, or ought, the Liberals and Spiritualists to unite?\n\n_Answer_. All people should unite where they have objects in\ncommon. They can vote together, and act together, without believing\nthe same on all points. A Liberal is not necessarily a Spiritualist,\nand a Spiritualist is not necessarily a Liberal. If Spiritualists\nwish to liberalize the Government, certainly Liberals would be glad\nof their assistance, and if Spiritualists take any step in the\ndirection of freedom, the Liberals should stand by them to that\nextent.\n\n_Question_. Which is the more dangerous to American institutions\n--the National Reform Association (God-in-the-Constitution party)\nor the Roman Catholic Church?\n\n_Answer_. The Association and the Catholic Church are dangerous\naccording to their power. The Catholic Church has far more power\nthan the Reform Association, and is consequently far more dangerous.\nThe God-in-the-Constitution association is weak, fanatical, stupid,\nand absurd. What God are we to have in the Constitution? Whose\nGod? If we should agree to-morrow to put God in the Constitution,\nthe question would then be: Which God? On that question, the\nreligious world would fall out. In that direction there is no\ndanger. But the Roman Catholic Church is the enemy of intellectual\nliberty. It is the enemy of investigation. It is the enemy of\nfree schools. That church always has been, always will be, the\nenemy of freedom. It works in the dark. When in a minority it is\nhumility itself--when in power it is the impersonation of arrogance.\nIn weakness it crawls--in power it stands erect, and compels its\nvictims to fall upon their faces. The most dangerous institution\nin this world, so far as the intellectual liberty of man is concerned,\nis the Roman Catholic Church. Next to that is the Protestant\nChurch.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of the Christian religion and\nthe Christian Church?\n\n_Answer_. My opinion upon this subject is certainly well known.\nThe Christian Church is founded upon miracles--that is to say, upon\nimpossibilities. Of course, there is a great deal that is good in\nthe creeds of the churches, and in the sermons delivered by its\nministers; but mixed with this good is much that is evil. My\nprincipal objection to orthodox religion is the dogma of eternal\npain. Nothing can be more infamously absurd. All civilized men\nshould denounce it--all women should regard it with a kind of\nshuddering abhorrence.\n\n--_Secular Thought_, Toronto, Canada, 1888.\n\n\nPOPE LEO XIII.\n\n_Question_. Do you agree with the views of Pope Leo XIII. as\nexpressed in _The Herald_ of last week?\n\n_Answer_. I am not personally acquainted with Leo XIII., but I\nhave not the slightest idea that he loves Americans or their country.\nI regard him as an enemy of intellectual liberty. He tells us that\nwhere the church is free it will increase, and I say to him that\nwhere others are free it will not. The Catholic Church has increased\nin this country by immigration and in no other way. Possibly the\nPope is willing to use his power for the good of the whole people,\nProtestants and Catholics, and to increase their prosperity and\nhappiness, because by this he means that he will use his power to\nmake Catholics out of Protestants.\n\nIt is impossible for the Catholic Church to be in favor of mental\nfreedom. That church represents absolute authority. Its members\nhave no right to reason--no right to ask questions--they are called\nupon simply to believe and to pay their subscriptions.\n\n_Question_. Do you agree with the Pope when he says that the result\nof efforts which have been made to throw aside Christianity and\nlive without it can be seen in the present condition of society--\ndiscontent, disorder, hatred and profound unhappiness?\n\n_Answer_. Undoubtedly the people of Europe who wish to be free\nare discontented. Undoubtedly these efforts to have something like\njustice done will bring disorder. Those in power will hate those\nwho are endeavoring to drive them from their thrones. If the people\nnow, as formerly, would bear all burdens cheerfully placed upon\ntheir shoulders by church and state--that is to say, if they were\nso enslaved mentally that they would not even have sense enough to\ncomplain, then there would be what the Pope might call \"peace and\nhappiness\"--that is to say, the peace of ignorance, and the happiness\nof those who are expecting pay in another world for their agonies\nendured in this.\n\nOf course, the revolutionaries of Europe are not satisfied with\nthe Catholic religion; neither are they satisfied with the Protestant.\nBoth of these religions rest upon authority. Both discourage\nreason. Both say \"Let him that hath ears to hear, hear,\" but\nneither say let him that hath brains to think, think.\n\nChristianity has been thoroughly tried, and it is a failure. Nearly\nevery church has upheld slavery, not only of the body, but of the\nmind. When Christian missionaries invade what they call a heathen\ncountry, they are followed in a little while by merchants and\ntraders, and in a few days afterward by the army. The first real\nwork is to kill the heathen or steal their lands, or else reduce\nthem to something like slavery.\n\nI have no confidence in the reformation of this world by churches.\nChurches for the most part exist, not for this world, but for\nanother. They are founded upon the supernatural, and they say:\n\"Take no thought for the morrow; put your trust in your Heavenly\nFather and he will take care of you.\" On the other hand, science\nsays: \"You must take care of yourself, live for the world in which\nyou happen to be--if there is another, live for that when you get\nthere.\"\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the plan to better the condition\nof the workingmen, by committees headed by bishops of the Catholic\nChurch, in discussing their duties?\n\n_Answer_. If the bishops wish to discuss with anybody about duties\nthey had better discuss with the employers, instead of the employed.\nThis discussion had better take place between the clergy and the\ncapitalist. There is no need of discussing this question with the\npoor wretches who cannot earn more than enough to keep their souls\nin their bodies. If the Catholic Church has so much power, and if\nit represents God on earth, let it turn its attention to softening\nthe hearts of capitalists, and no longer waste its time in preaching\npatience to the poor slaves who are now bearing the burdens of the\nworld.\n\n_Question_. Do you agree with the Pope that: \"Sound rules of life\nmust be founded on religion\"?\n\n_Answer_. I do not. Sound rules of life must be founded on the\nexperience of mankind. In other words, we must live for this world.\nWhy should men throw away hundreds and thousands of millions of\ndollars in building cathedrals and churches, and paying the salaries\nof bishops and priests, and cardinals and popes, and get no possible\nreturn for all this money except a few guesses about another world\n--those guesses being stated as facts--when every pope and priest\nand bishop knows that no one knows the slightest thing on the\nsubject. Superstition is the greatest burden borne by the industry\nof the world.\n\nThe nations of Europe to-day all pretend to be Christian, yet\nmillions of men are drilled and armed for the purpose of killing\nother Christians. Each Christian nation is fortified to prevent\nother Christians from devastating their fields. There is already\na debt of about twenty-five thousand millions of dollars which has\nbeen incurred by Christian nations, because each one is afraid of\nevery other, and yet all say: \"It is our duty to love our enemies.\"\n\nThis world, in my judgment, is to be reformed through intelligence\n--through development of the mind--not by credulity, but by\ninvestigation; not by faith in the supernatural, but by faith in\nthe natural. The church has passed the zenith of her power. The\nclergy must stand aside. Scientists must take their places.\n\n_Question_. Do you agree with the Pope in attacking the present\ngovernments of Europe and the memories of Mazzini and Saffi?\n\n_Answer_. I do not. I think Mazzini was of more use to Italy than\nall the popes that ever occupied the chair of St. Peter--which, by\nthe way, was not his chair. I have a thousand times more regard\nfor Mazzini, for Garibaldi, for Cavour, than I have for any gentleman\nwho pretends to be the representative of God.\n\nThere is another objection I have to the Pope, and that is that he\nwas so scandalized when a monument was reared in Rome to the memory\nof Giordano Bruno. Bruno was murdered about two hundred and sixty\nyears ago by the Catholic Church, and such has been the development\nof the human brain and heart that on the very spot where he was\nmurdered a monument rises to his memory.\n\nBut the vicar of God has remained stationary, and he regards this\nmark of honor to one of the greatest and noblest of the human race\nas an act of blasphemy. The poor old man acts as if America had\nnever been discovered--as if the world were still flat--and as if\nthe stars had been made out of little pieces left over from the\ncreation of the world and stuck in the sky simply to beautify the\nnight.\n\nBut, after all, I do not blame this Pope. He is the victim of his\nsurroundings. He was never married. His heart was never softened\nby wife or children. He was born that way, and, to tell you the\ntruth, he has my sincere sympathy. Let him talk about America and\nstay in Italy.\n\n--_The Herald_, New York, April 22, 1890.\n\n\nTHE SACREDNESS OF THE SABBATH.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the sacredness of the Sabbath?\n\n_Answer_. I think all days, all times and all seasons are alike\nsacred. I think the best day in a man's life is the day that he\nis truly the happiest. Every day in which good is done to humanity\nis a holy day.\n\nIf I were to make a calendar of sacred days, I would put down the\ndays in which the greatest inventions came to the mind of genius;\nthe days when scattered tribes became nations; the days when good\nlaws were passed; the days when bad ones were repealed; the days\nwhen kings were dethroned, and the people given their own; in other\nwords, every day in which good has been done; in which men and\nwomen have truly fallen in love, days in which babes were born\ndestined to change the civilization of the world. These are all\nsacred days; days in which men have fought for the right, suffered\nfor the right, died for the right; all days in which there were\nheroic actions for good. The day when slavery was abolished in\nthe United States is holier than any Sabbath by reason of \"divine\nconsecration.\"\n\nOf course, I care nothing about the sacredness of the Sabbath\nbecause it was hallowed in the Old Testament, or because of that\nday Jehovah is said to have rested from his labors. A space of\ntime cannot be sacred, any more than a vacuum can be sacred, and\nit is rendered sacred by deeds done in it, and not in and of itself.\n\nIf we should finally invent some means of traveling by which we\ncould go a thousand miles a day, a man could escape Sunday all his\nlife by traveling West. He could start Monday, and stay Monday\nall the time. Or, if he should some time get near the North Pole,\nhe could walk faster than the earth turns and thus beat Sunday all\nthe while.\n\n_Question_. Should not the museums and art galleries be thrown\nopen to the workingmen free on Sunday?\n\n_Answer_. Undoubtedly. In all civilized countries this is done,\nand I believe it would be done in New York, only it is said that\nmoney has been given on condition that the museums should be kept\nclosed on Sundays. I have always heard it said that large sums\nwill be withheld by certain old people who have the prospect of\ndying in the near future if the museums are open on Sunday.\n\nThis, however, seems to me a very poor and shallow excuse. Money\nshould not be received under such conditions. One of the curses\nof our country has been the giving of gifts to colleges on certain\nconditions. As, for instance, the money given to Andover by the\noriginal founder on the condition that a certain creed be taught,\nand other large amounts have been given on a like condition. Now,\nthe result of this is that the theological professor must teach\nwhat these donors have indicated, or go out of the institution; or\n--and this last \"or\" is generally the trouble--teach what he does\nnot believe, endeavoring to get around it by giving new meaning to\nold words.\n\nI think the cause of intellectual progress has been much delayed\nby these conditions put in the wills of supposed benefactors, so\nthat after they are dead they can rule people who have the habit\nof being alive. In my opinion, a corpse is a poor ruler, and after\na man is dead he should keep quiet.\n\nOf course all that he did will live, and should be allowed to have\nits natural effect. If he was a great inventor or discoverer, or\nif he uttered great truths, these became the property of the world;\nbut he should not endeavor, after he is dead, to rule the living\nby conditions attached to his gifts.\n\nAll the museums and libraries should be opened, not only to\nworkingmen, but to all others. If to see great paintings, great\nstatues, wonderful works of art; if to read the thoughts of the\ngreatest men--if these things tend to the civilization of the race,\nthen they should be put as nearly as possible within the reach of\nall.\n\nThe man who works eight or ten or twelve hours a day has not time\nduring the six days of labor to visit libraries or museums. Sunday\nis his day of leisure, his day of recreation, and on that day he\nshould have the privilege, and he himself should deem it a right\nto visit all the public libraries and museums, parks and gardens.\n\nIn other words, I think the laboring man should have the same rights\non Sundays, to say the least of it, that wealthy people have on\nother days. The man of wealth has leisure. He can attend these\nplaces on any day he may desire; but necessity being the master of\nthe poor man, Sunday is his one day for such a purpose. For men\nof wealth to close the museums and libraries on that day, shows\nthat they have either a mistaken idea as to the well-being of their\nfellow-men, or that they care nothing about the rights of any except\nthe wealthy.\n\nPersonally, I have no sort of patience with the theological snivel\nand drivel about the sacredness of the Sabbath. I do not understand\nwhy they do not accept the words of their own Christ, namely, that\n\"the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.\"\n\nThe hypocrites of Judea were great sticklers for the Sabbath, and\nthe orthodox Christians of New York are exactly the same. My own\nopinion is that a man who has been at work all the week, in the\ndust and heat, can hardly afford to waste his Sunday in hearing an\northodox sermon--a sermon that gives him the cheerful intelligence\nthat his chances for being damned are largely in the majority. I\nthink it is far better for the workingman to go out with his family\nin the park, into the woods, to some German garden, where he can\nhear the music of Wagner, or even the waltzes of Strauss, or to\ntake a boat and go down to the shore of the sea. I think than in\nsummer a few waves of the ocean are far more refreshing then all\nthe orthodox sermons of the world.\n\nAs a matter of fact, I believe the preachers leave the city in the\nsummer and let the Devil do his worst. Whether it is believed that\nthe Devil has less power in warm weather, I do not know. But I do\nknow that, as the mercury rises, the anxiety about souls decreases,\nand the hotter New York becomes, the cooler hell seems to be.\n\nI want the workingman, no matter what he works at--whether at\ndoctoring people, or trying law suits, or running for office--to\nhave a real good time on Sunday. He, of course, must be careful\nnot to interfere with the rights of others. He ought not to play\ndraw-poker on the steps of a church; neither should he stone a\nChinese funeral, nor go to any excesses; but all the week long he\nshould have it in his mind: Next Sunday I am going to have a good\ntime. My wife and I and the children are going to have a happy\ntime. I am going out with the girl I like; or my young man is\ngoing to take me to the picnic. And this thought, and this hope,\nof having a good time on Sunday--of seeing some great pictures at\nthe Metropolitan Art Gallery--together with a good many bad ones--\nwill make work easy and lighten the burden on the shoulders of toil.\n\nI take a great interest, too, in the working women--particularly\nin the working woman. I think that every workingman should see to\nit that every working woman has a good time on Sunday. I am no\npreacher. All I want is that everybody should enjoy himself in a\nway that he will not and does not interfere with the enjoyment of\nothers.\n\nIt will not do to say that we cannot trust the people. Our Government\nis based upon the idea that the people can be trusted, and those\nwho say that the workingmen cannot be trusted, do not believe in\nRepublican or Democratic institutions. For one, I am perfectly\nwilling to trust the working people of the country. I do, every\nday. I trust the engineers on the cars and steamers. I trust the\nbuilders of houses. I trust all laboring men every day of my life,\nand if the laboring people of the country were not trustworthy--if\nthey were malicious or dishonest--life would not be worth living.\n\n--_The Journal_, New York, June 6, 1890.\n\n\nTHE WEST AND SOUTH.\n\n_Question_. Do you think the South will ever equal or surpass the\nWest in point of prosperity?\n\n_Answer_. I do not. The West has better soil and more of the\nelements of wealth. It is not liable to yellow fever; its rivers\nhave better banks; the people have more thrift, more enterprise,\nmore political hospitality; education is more general; the people\nare more inventive; better traders, and besides all this, there is\nno race problem. The Southern people are what their surroundings\nmade them, and the influence of slavery has not yet died out. In\nmy judgment the climate of the West is superior to that of the\nSouth. The West has good, cold winters, and they make people a\nlittle more frugal, prudent and industrious. Winters make good\nhomes, cheerful firesides, and, after all, civilization commences\nat the hearthstone. The South is growing, and will continue to\ngrow, but it will never equal the West. The West is destined to\ndominate the Republic.\n\n_Question_. Do you consider the new ballot-law adapted to the\nneeds of our system of elections? If not, in what particulars does\nit require amendment?\n\n_Answer_. Personally I like the brave and open way. The secret\nballot lacks courage. I want people to know just how I vote. The\nold _viva voce_ way was manly and looked well. Every American\nshould be taught that he votes as a sovereign--an emperor--and he\nshould exercise the right in a kingly way. But if we must have\nthe secret ballot, then let it be secret indeed, and let the crowd\nstand back while the king votes.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the service pension movement?\n\n_Answer_. I see that there is a great deal of talk here in Indiana\nabout this service pension movement. It has always seemed to me\nthat the pension fund has been frittered away. Of what use is it\nto give a man two or three dollars a month? If a man is rich why\nshould he have any pension? I think it would be better to give\npensions only to the needy, and then give them enough to support\nthem. If the man was in the army a day or a month, and was uninjured,\nand can make his own living, or has enough, why should he have a\npension? I believe in giving to the wounded and disabled and poor,\nwith a liberal hand, but not to the rich. I know that the nation\ncould not pay the men who fought and suffered. There is not money\nenough in the world to pay the heroes for what they did and endured\n--but there is money enough to keep every wounded and diseased\nsoldier from want. There is money enough to fill the lives of\nthose who gave limbs or health for the sake of the Republic, with\ncomfort and happiness. I would also like to see the poor soldier\ntaken care of whether he was wounded or not, but I see no propriety\nin giving to those who do not need.\n\n--_The Journal_, Indianapolis, Indiana, June 21, 1890.\n\n\nTHE WESTMINSTER CREED AND OTHER SUBJECTS.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the revision of the Westminster\ncreed?\n\n_Answer_. I think that the intelligence and morality of the age\ndemand the revision. The Westminster creed is infamous. It makes\nGod an infinite monster, and men the most miserable of beings.\nThat creed has made millions insane. It has furrowed countless\ncheeks with tears. Under its influence the sentiments and sympathies\nof the heart have withered. This creed was written by the worst\nof men. The civilized Presbyterians do not believe it. The\nintelligent clergyman will not preach it, and all good men who\nunderstand it, hold it in abhorrence. But the fact is that it is\njust as good as the creed of any orthodox church. All these creeds\nmust be revised. Young America will not be consoled by the doctrine\nof eternal pain. Yes, the creeds must be revised or the churches\nwill be closed.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the influence of the press on\nreligion?\n\n_Answer_. If you mean on orthodox religion, then I say the press\nis helping to destroy it. Just to the extent that the press is\nintelligent and fearless, it is and must be the enemy of superstition.\nEvery fact in the universe is the enemy of every falsehood. The\npress furnishes food for, and excites thought. This tends to the\ndestruction of the miraculous and absurd. I regard the press as\nthe friend of progress and consequently the foe of orthodox religion.\nThe old dogmas do not make the people happy. What is called religion\nis full of fear and grief. The clergy are always talking about\ndying, about the grave and eternal pain. They do not add to the\nsunshine of life. If they could have their way all the birds would\nstop singing, the flowers would lose their color and perfume, and\nall the owls would sit on dead trees and hoot, \"Broad is the road\nthat leads to death.\"\n\n_Question_. If you should write your last sentence on religious\ntopics what would be your closing?\n\n_Answer_. I now in the presence of death affirm and reaffirm the\ntruth of all that I have said against the superstitions of the\nworld. I would say at least that much on the subject with my last\nbreath.\n\n_Question_. What, in your opinion, will be Browning's position in\nthe literature of the future?\n\n_Answer_. Lower than at present. Mrs. Browning was far greater\nthan her husband. He never wrote anything comparable to \"Mother\nand Poet.\" Browning lacked form, and that is as great a lack in\npoetry as it is in sculpture. He was the author of some great\nlines, some great thoughts, but he was obscure, uneven and was\nalways mixing the poetic with the commonplace. To me he cannot be\ncompared with Shelley or Keats, or with our own Walt Whitman. Of\ncourse poetry cannot be very well discussed. Each man knows what\nhe likes, what touches his heart and what words burst into blossom,\nbut he cannot judge for others. After one has read Shakespeare,\nBurns and Byron, and Shelley and Keats; after he has read the\n\"Sonnets\" and the \"Daisy\" and the \"Prisoner of Chillon\" and the\n\"Skylark\" and the \"Ode to the Grecian Urn\"--the \"Flight of the\nDuchess\" seems a little weak.\n\n--_The Post-Express_, Rochester, New York, June 23, 1890.\n\n\nSHAKESPEARE AND BACON.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of Ignatius Donnelly as a literary\nman irrespective of his Baconian theory?\n\n_Answer_. I know that Mr. Donnelly enjoys the reputation of being\na man of decided ability and that he is regarded by many as a great\norator. He is known to me through his Baconian theory, and in that\nof course I have no confidence. It is nearly as ingenious as\nabsurd. He has spent great time, and has devoted much curious\nlearning to the subject, and has at last succeeded in convincing\nhimself that Shakespeare claimed that which he did not write, and\nthat Bacon wrote that which he did not claim. But to me the theory\nis without the slightest foundation.\n\n_Question_. Mr. Donnelly asks: \"Can you imagine the author of\nsuch grand productions retiring to that mud house in Stratford to\nlive without a single copy of the quarto that has made his name\nfamous?\" What do you say?\n\n_Answer_. Yes; I can. Shakespeare died in 1616, and the quarto\nwas published in 1623, seven years after he was dead. Under these\ncircumstances I think Shakespeare ought to be excused, even by\nthose who attack him with the greatest bitterness, for not having a copy\nof the book. There is, however, another side to his. Bacon did\nnot die until long after the quarto was published. Did he have a\ncopy? Did he mention the copy in his will? Did he ever mention\nthe quarto in any letter, essay, or in any way? He left a library,\nwas there a copy of the plays in it? Has there ever been found a\nline from any play or sonnet in his handwriting? Bacon left his\nwritings, his papers, all in perfect order, but no plays, no sonnets,\nsaid nothing about plays--claimed nothing on their behalf. This\nis the other side. Now, there is still another thing. The edition\nof 1623 was published by Shakespeare's friends, Heminge and Condell.\nThey knew him--had been with him for years, and they collected most\nof his plays and put them in book form.\n\nBen Jonson wrote a preface, in which he placed Shakespeare above\nall the other poets--declared that he was for all time.\n\nThe edition of 1623 was gotten up by actors, by the friends and\nassociates of Shakespeare, vouched for by dramatic writers--by\nthose who knew him. This is enough.\n\n_Question_. How do you explain the figure: \"His soul, like Mazeppa,\nwas lashed naked to the wild horse of every fear and love and hate\"?\nMr. Donnelly does not understand you.\n\n_Answer_. It hardly seems necessary to explain a thing as simple\nand plain as that. Men are carried away by some fierce passion--\ncarried away in spite of themselves as Mazeppa was carried by the\nwild horse to which he was lashed. Whether the comparison is good\nor bad it is at least plain. Nothing could tempt me to call Mr.\nDonnelly's veracity in question. He says that he does not understand\nthe sentence and I most cheerfully admit that he tells the exact\ntruth.\n\n_Question_. Mr. Donnelly says that you said: \"Where there is\ngenius, education seems almost unnecessary,\" and he denounces your\ndoctrine as the most abominable doctrine ever taught. What have\nyou to say to that?\n\n_Answer_. In the first place, I never made the remark. In the\nnext place, it may be well enough to ask what education is. Much\nis taught in colleges that is of no earthly use; much is taught\nthat is hurtful. There are thousands of educated men who never\ngraduated from any college or university. Every observant, thoughtful\nman is educating himself as long as he lives. Men are better then\nbooks. Observation is a great teacher. A man of talent learns\nslowly. He does not readily see the necessary relation that one\nfact bears to another. A man of genius, learning one fact, instantly\nsees hundreds of others. It is not necessary for such a man to\nattend college. The world is his university. Every man he meets\nis a book--every woman a volume every fact a torch--and so without\nthe aid of the so-called schools he rises to the very top.\nShakespeare was such a man.\n\n_Question_. Mr. Donnelly says that: \"The biggest myth ever on\nearth was Shakespeare, and that if Francis Bacon had said to the\npeople, I, Francis Bacon, a gentleman of gentlemen, have been taking\nin secret my share of the coppers and shillings taken at the door\nof those low playhouses, he would have been ruined. If he had put\nthe plays forth simply as poetry it would have ruined his legal\nreputation.\" What do you think of this?\n\n_Answer_. I hardly think that Shakespeare was a myth. He was\ncertainly born, married, lived in London, belonged to a company of\nactors; went back to Stratford, where he had a family, and died.\nAll these things do not as a rule happen to myths. In addition to\nthis, those who knew him believed him to be the author of the plays.\nBacon's friends never suspected him. I do not think it would have\nhurt Bacon to have admitted that he wrote \"Lear\" and \"Othello,\"\nand that he was getting \"coppers and shillings\" to which he was\njustly entitled. Certainly not as much as for him to have written\nthis, which if fact, though not in exact form, he did write: \"I,\nFrancis Bacon, a gentleman of gentlemen, have been taking coppers\nand shillings to which I was not entitled--but which I received as\nbribes while sitting as a judge.\" He has been excused for two\nreasons. First, because his salary was small, and, second, because\nit was the custom for judges to receive presents.\n\nBacon was a lawyer. He was charged with corruption--with having\ntaken bribes, with having sold his decisions. He knew what the\ncustom was and knew how small his salary was. But he did not plead\nthe custom in his defense. He did not mention the smallness of\nthe salary. He confessed that he was guilty--as charged. His\nconfession was deemed too general and he was called upon by the\nLords to make a specific confession. This he did. He specified\nthe cases in which he had received the money and told how much,\nand begged for mercy. He did not make his confession, as Mr.\nDonnelly is reported to have said, to get his fine remitted. The\nconfession was made before the fine was imposed.\n\nNeither do I think that the theatre in which the plays of Shakespeare\nwere represented could or should be called a \"low play house.\"\nThe fact that \"Othello,\" \"Lear,\" \"Hamlet,\" \"Julius Caesar,\" and\nthe other great dramas were first played in that playhouse made it\nthe greatest building in the world. The gods themselves should\nhave occupied seats in that theatre, where for the first time the\ngreatest productions of the human mind were put upon the stage.\n\n--_The Tribune_, Minneapolis, Minn., May 31, 1891.\n\n\nGROWING OLD GRACEFULLY, AND PRESBYTERIANISM.\n\n_Question_. How have you acquired the art of growing old\ngracefully?\n\n_Answer_. It is very hard to live a great while without getting\nold, and it is hardly worth while to die just to keep young. It\nis claimed that people with certain incomes live longer than those\nwho have to earn their bread. But the income people have a stupid\nkind of life, and though they may hang on a good many years, they\ncan hardly be said to do much real living. The best you can say\nis, not that they lived so many years, but that it took them so\nmany years to die. Some people imagine that regular habits prolong\nlife, but that depends somewhat on the habits. Only the other day\nI read an article written by a physician, in which regular habits\n--good ones, were declared to be quite dangerous.\n\nWhere life is perfectly regular, all the wear and tear comes on\nthe same nerves--every blow falls on the same place. Variety, even\nin a bad direction, is a great relief. But living long has nothing\nto do with getting old gracefully. Good nature is a great enemy\nof wrinkles, and cheerfulness helps the complexion. If we could\nonly keep from being annoyed at little things, it would add to the\nluxury of living. Great sorrows are few, and after all do not\naffect us as much as the many irritating, almost nothings that\nattack from every side. The traveler is bothered more with dust\nthan mountains. It is a great thing to have an object in life--\nsomething to work for and think for. If a man thinks only about\nhimself, his own comfort, his own importance, he will not grow old\ngracefully. More and more his spirit, small and mean, will leave\nits impress on his face, and especially in his eyes. You look at\nhim and feel that there is no jewel in the casket; that a shriveled\nsoul is living in a tumble-down house.\n\nThe body gets its grace from the mind. I suppose that we are all\nmore or less responsible for our looks. Perhaps the thinker of\ngreat thoughts, the doer of noble deeds, moulds his features in\nharmony with his life.\n\nProbably the best medicine, the greatest beautifier in the world,\nis to make somebody else happy. I have noticed that good mothers\nhave faces as serene as a cloudless day in June, and the older the\nserener. It is a great thing to know the relative importance of\nthings, and those who do, get the most out of life. Those who take\nan interest in what they see, and keep their minds busy are always\nyoung.\n\nThe other day I met a blacksmith who has given much attention to\ngeology and fossil remains. He told me how happy he was in his\nexcursions. He was nearly seventy years old, and yet he had the\nenthusiasm of a boy. He said he had some very fine specimens,\n\"but,\" said he, \"nearly every night I dream of finding perfect\nones.\"\n\nThat man will keep young as long as he lives. As long as a man\nlives he should study. Death alone has the right to dismiss the\nschool. No man can get too much knowledge. In that, he can have\nall the avarice he wants, but he can get too much property. If\nthe business men would stop when they got enough, they might have\na chance to grow old gracefully. But the most of them go on and\non, until, like the old stage horse, stiff and lame, they drop dead\nin the road. The intelligent, the kind, the reasonably contented,\nthe courageous, the self-poised, grow old gracefully.\n\n_Question_. Are not the restraints to free religious thought being\nworn away, as the world grows older, and will not the recent attacks\nof the religious press and pulpit upon the unorthodoxy of Dr.\nBriggs, Rev. R. Heber Newton and the prospective Episcopal bishop\nof Massachusetts, Dr. Phillips Brooks, and others, have a tendency\nstill further to extend this freedom?\n\n_Answer_. Of course the world is growing somewhat wiser--getting\nmore sense day by day. It is amazing to me that any human being\nor beings ever wrote the Presbyterian creed. Nothing can be more\nabsurd--more barbaric than that creed. It makes man the sport of\nan infinite monster, and yet good people, men and women of ability,\nwho have gained eminence in almost every department of human effort,\nstand by this creed as if it were filled with wisdom and goodness.\nThey really think that a good God damns his poor ignorant children\njust for his own glory, and that he sends people to perdition, not\nfor any evil in them, but to the praise of his glorious justice.\nDr. Briggs has been wicked enough to doubt this phase of God's\ngoodness, and Dr. Bridgman was heartless enough to drop a tear in\nhell. Of course they have no idea of what justice really is.\n\nThe Presbyterian General Assembly that has just adjourned stood by\nCalvinism. The \"Five Points\" are as sharp as ever. The members\nof that assembly--most of them--find all their happiness in the\n\"creed.\" They need no other amusement. If they feel blue they\nread about total depravity--and cheer up. In moments of great\nsorrow they think of the tale of non-elect infants, and their hearts\noverflow with a kind of joy.\n\nThey cannot imagine why people wish to attend the theatre when they\ncan read the \"Confession of Faith,\" or why they should feel like\ndancing after they do read it.\n\nIt is very sad to think of the young men and women who have been\neternally ruined by witnessing the plays of Shakespeare, and it is\nalso sad to think of the young people, foolish enough to be happy,\nkeeping time to the pulse of music, waltzing to hell in loving\npairs--all for the glory of God, and to the praise of his glorious\njustice. I think, too, of the thousands of men and women who, while\nlistening to the music of Wagner, have absolutely forgotten the\nPresbyterian creed, and who for a little while have been as happy\nas if the creed had never been written. Tear down the theatres,\nburn the opera houses, break all musical instruments, and then let\nus go to church.\n\nI am not at all surprised that the General Assembly took up this\nprogressive euchre matter. The word \"progressive\" is always\nobnoxious to the ministers. Euchre under another name might go.\nOf course, progressive euchre is a kind of gambling. I knew a\nyoung man, or rather heard of him, who won at progressive euchre\na silver spoon. At first this looks like nothing, almost innocent,\nand yet that spoon, gotten for nothing, sowed the seed of gambling\nin that young man's brain. He became infatuated with euchre, then\nwith cards in general, then with draw-poker in particular,--then\ninto Wall Street. He is now a total wreck, and has the impudence\nto say that is was all \"pre-ordained.\" Think of the thousands and\nmillions that are being demoralized by games of chance, by marbles\n--when they play for keeps--by billiards and croquet, by fox and\ngeese, authors, halma, tiddledywinks and pigs in clover. In all\nthese miserable games, is the infamous element of chance--the raw\nmaterial of gambling. Probably none of these games could be played\nexclusively for the glory of God. I agree with the Presbyterian\nGeneral Assembly, if the creed is true, why should anyone try to\namuse himself? If there is a hell, and all of us are going there,\nthere should never be another smile on the human face. We should\nspend our days in sighs, our nights in tears. The world should go\ninsane. We find strange combinations--good men with bad creeds,\nand bad men with good ones--and so the great world stumbles along.\n\n--_The Blade_, Toledo, Ohio, June 4, 1891.\n\n\nCREEDS.\n\nThere is a natural desire on the part of every intelligent human\nbeing to harmonize his information--to make his theories agree--in\nother words, to make what he knows, or thinks he knows, in one\ndepartment, agree and harmonize with what he knows, or thinks he\nknows, in every other department of human knowledge.\n\nThe human race has not advanced in line, neither has it advanced\nin all departments with the same rapidity. It is with the race as\nit is with an individual. A man may turn his entire attention to\nsome one subject--as, for instance, to geology--and neglect other\nsciences. He may be a good geologist, but an exceedingly poor\nastronomer; or he may know nothing of politics or of political\neconomy. So he may be a successful statesman and know nothing of\ntheology. But if a man, successful in one direction, takes up some\nother question, he is bound to use the knowledge he has on one\nsubject as a kind of standard to measure what he is told on some\nother subject. If he is a chemist, it will be natural for him,\nwhen studying some other question, to use what he knows in chemistry;\nthat is to say, he will expect to find cause and effect everywhere\n--succession and resemblance. He will say: It must be in all\nother sciences as in chemistry--there must be no chance. The\nelements have no caprice. Iron is always the same. Gold does not\nchange. Prussic acid is always poison--it has no freaks. So he\nwill reason as to all facts in nature. He will be a believer in\nthe atomic integrity of all matter, in the persistence of gravitation.\nBeing so trained, and so convinced, his tendency will be to weigh\nwhat is called new information in the same scales that he has been\nusing.\n\nNow, for the application of this. Progress in religion is the\nslowest, because man is kept back by sentimentality, by the efforts\nof parents, by old associations. A thousand unseen tendrils are\ntwining about him that he must necessarily break if he advances.\nIn other departments of knowledge inducements are held out and\nrewards are promised to the one who does succeed--to the one who\nreally does advance--to the one who discovers new facts. But in\nreligion, instead of rewards being promised, threats are made.\nThe man is told that he must not advance; that if he takes a step\nforward, it is at the peril of his soul; that if he thinks and\ninvestigates, he is in danger of exciting the wrath of God.\nConsequently religion has been of the slowest growth. Now, in most\ndepartments of knowledge, man has advanced; and coming back to the\noriginal statement--a desire to harmonize all that we know--there\nis a growing desire on the part of intelligent men to have a religion\nfit to keep company with the other sciences.\n\nOur creeds were made in times of ignorance. They suited very well\na flat world, and a God who lived in the sky just above us and who\nused the lightning to destroy his enemies. This God was regarded\nmuch as a savage regarded the head of his tribe--as one having the\nright to reward and punish. And this God, being much greater than\na chief of the tribe, could give greater rewards and inflict greater\npunishments. They knew that the ordinary chief, or the ordinary\nking, punished the slightest offence with death. They also knew\nthat these chiefs and kings tortured their victims as long as the\nvictims could bear the torture. So when they described their God,\nthey gave this God power to keep the tortured victim alive forever\n--because they knew that the earthly chief, or the earthly king,\nwould prolong the life of the tortured for the sake of increasing\nthe agonies of the victim. In those savage days they regarded\npunishment as the only means of protecting society. In consequence\nof this they built heaven and hell on an earthly plan, and they\nput God--that is to say the chief, that is to say the king--on a\nthrone like an earthly king.\n\nOf course, these views were all ignorant and barbaric; but in that\nblessed day their geology and astronomy were on a par with their\ntheology. There was a harmony in all departments of knowledge, or\nrather of ignorance. Since that time there has been a great advance\nmade in the idea of government--the old idea being that the right\nto govern came from God to the king, and from the king to his\npeople. Now intelligent people believe that the source of authority\nhas been changed, and that all just powers of government are derived\nfrom the consent of the governed. So there has been a great advance\nin the philosophy of punishment--in the treatment of criminals.\nSo, too, in all the sciences. The earth is no longer flat; heaven\nis not immediately above us; the universe has been infinitely\nenlarged, and we have at last found that our earth is but a grain\nof sand, a speck on the great shore of the infinite. Consequently\nthere is a discrepancy, a discord, a contradiction between our\ntheology and the other sciences. Men of intelligence feel this.\nDr. Briggs concluded that a perfectly good and intelligent God\ncould not have created billions of sentient beings, knowing that\nthey were to be eternally miserable. No man could do such a thing,\nhad he the power, without being infinitely malicious. Dr. Briggs\nbegan to have a little hope for the human race--began to think that\nmaybe God is better than the creed describes him.\n\nAnd right here it may be well enough to remark that no one has ever\nbeen declared a heretic for thinking God bad. Heresy has consisted\nin thinking God better than the church said he was. The man who\nsaid God will damn nearly everybody, was orthodox. The man who\nsaid God will save everybody, was denounced as a blaspheming wretch,\nas one who assailed and maligned the character of God. I can\nremember when the Universalists were denounced as vehemently and\nmaliciously as the Atheists are to-day.\n\nNow, Dr. Briggs is undoubtedly an intelligent man. He knows that\nnobody on earth knows who wrote the five books of Moses. He knows\nthat they were not written until hundreds of years after Moses was\ndead. He knows that two or more persons were the authors of Isaiah.\nHe knows that David did not write to exceed three or four of the\nPsalms. He knows that the Book of Job is not a Jewish book. He\nknows that the Songs of Solomon were not written by Solomon. He\nknows that the Book of Ecclesiastes was written by a Freethinker.\nHe also knows that there is not in existence to-day--so far as\nanybody knows--any of the manuscripts of the Old or New Testaments.\n\nSo about the New Testament, Dr. Briggs knows that nobody lives who\nhas ever seen an original manuscript, or who ever saw anybody that\ndid see one, or that claims to have seen one. He knows that nobody\nknows who wrote Matthew or Mark or Luke or John. He knows that\nJohn did not write John, and that that gospel was not written until\nlong after John was dead. He knows that no one knows who wrote\nthe Hebrews. He also knows that the Book of Revelation is an insane\nproduction. Dr. Briggs also knows the way in which these books came\nto be canonical, and he knows that the way was no more binding than\na resolution passed by a political convention. He also knows that\nmany books were left out that had for centuries equal authority\nwith those that were put in. He also knows that many passages--\nand the very passages upon which many churches are founded--are\ninterpolations. He knows that the last chapter of Mark, beginning\nwith the sixteenth verse to the end, is an interpolation; and he\nalso knows that neither Matthew nor Mark nor Luke ever said one\nword about the necessity of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, or\nof believing anything--not one word about believing the Bible or\njoining the church, or doing any particular thing in the way of\nceremony to insure salvation. He knows that according to Matthew,\nGod agreed to forgive us when we would forgive others. Consequently\nhe knows that there is not one particle of what is called modern\ntheology in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. He knows that the trouble\ncommenced in John, and that John was not written until probably\none hundred and fifty years--possibly two hundred years--after\nChrist was dead. So he also knows that the sin against the Holy\nGhost is an interpolation; that \"I came not to bring peace but a\nsword,\" if not an interpolation, is an absolute contradiction.\nSo, too, he knows that the promise to forgive in heaven what the\ndisciples should forgive on earth, is an interpolation; and that\nif its not an interpolation, it is without the slightest sense in\nfact.\n\nKnowing these things, and knowing, in addition to what I have\nstated, that there are thirty thousand or forty thousand mistakes\nin the Old Testament, that there are a great many contradictions\nand absurdities, than many of the laws are cruel and infamous, and\ncould have been made only by a barbarous people, Dr. Briggs has\nconcluded that, after all, the torch that sheds the serenest and\ndivinest light is the human reason, and that we must investigate\nthe Bible as we do other books. At least, I suppose he has reached\nsome such conclusion. He may imagine that the pure gold of\ninspiration still runs through the quartz and porphyry of ignorance\nand mistake, and that all we have to do is to extract the shining\nmetal by some process that may be called theological smelting; and\nif so I have no fault to find. Dr. Briggs has taken a step in\nadvance--that is to say, the tree is growing, and when the tree\ngrows, the bark splits; when the new leaves come the old leaves\nare rotting on the ground.\n\nThe Presbyterian creed is a very bad creed. It has been the\nstumbling-block, not only of the head, but of the heart for many\ngenerations. I do not know that it is, in fact, worse than any\nother orthodox creed; but the bad features are stated with an\nexplicitness and emphasized with a candor that render the creed\nabsolutely appalling. It is amazing to me that any man ever wrote\nit, or that any set of men ever produced it. It is more amazing\nto me that any human being ever believed in it. It is still more\namazing that any human being ever thought it wicked not to believe\nit. It is more amazing still, than all the others combined, that\nany human being ever wanted it to be true.\n\nThis creed is a relic of the Middle Ages. It has in it the malice,\nthe malicious logic, the total depravity, the utter heartlessness\nof John Calvin, and it gives me great pleasure to say that no\nPresbyterian was ever as bad as his creed. And here let me say,\nas I have said many times, that I do not hate Presbyterians--because\namong them I count some of my best friends--but I hate Presbyterianism.\nAnd I cannot illustrate this any better than by saying, I do not\nhate a man because he has the rheumatism, but I hate the rheumatism\nbecause it has a man.\n\nThe Presbyterian Church is growing, and is growing because, as I\nsaid at first, there is a universal tendency in the mind of man to\nharmonize all that he knows or thinks he knows. This growth may\nbe delayed. The buds of heresy may be kept back by the north wind\nof Princeton and by the early frost called Patton. In spite of\nthese souvenirs of the Dark Ages, the church must continue to grow.\nThe theologians who regard theology as something higher than a\ntrade, tend toward Liberalism. Those who regard preaching as a\nbusiness, and the inculcation of sentiment as a trade, will stand\nby the lowest possible views. They will cling to the letter and\nthrow away the spirit. They prefer the dead limb to a new bud or\nto a new leaf. They want no more sap. They delight in the dead\ntree, in its unbending nature, and they mistake the stiffness of\ndeath for the vigor and resistance of life.\n\nNow, as with Dr. Briggs, so with Dr. Bridgman, although it seems\nto me that he has simply jumped from the frying-pan into the fire;\nand why he should prefer the Episcopal creed to the Baptist, is\nmore than I can imagine. The Episcopal creed is, in fact, just as\nbad as the Presbyterian. It calmly and with unruffled brow, utters\nthe sentence of eternal punishment on the majority of the human\nrace, and the Episcopalian expects to be happy in heaven, with his\nson or daughter or his mother or wife in hell.\n\nDr. Bridgman will find himself exactly in the position of the Rev.\nMr. Newton, provided he expresses his thought. But I account for\nthe Bridgmans and for the Newtons by the fact that there is still\nsympathy in the human heart, and that there is still intelligence\nin the human brain. For my part, I am glad to see this growth in\nthe orthodox churches, and the quicker they revise their creeds\nthe better.\n\nI oppose nothing that is good in any creed--I attack only that\nwhich is ignorant, cruel and absurd, and I make the attack in the\ninterest of human liberty, and for the sake of human happiness.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the action of the Presbyterian\nGeneral Assembly at Detroit, and what effect do you think it will\nhave on religious growth?\n\n_Answer_. That General Assembly was controlled by the orthodox\nwithin the church, by the strict constructionists and by the\nCalvinists; by gentlemen who not only believe the creed, not only\nbelieve that a vast majority of people are going to hell, but are\nreally glad of it; by gentlemen who, when they feel a little blue,\nread about total depravity to cheer up, and when they think of the\nmercy of God as exhibited in their salvation, and the justice of\nGod as illustrated by the damnation of others, their hearts burst\ninto a kind of efflorescence of joy.\n\nThese gentlemen are opposed to all kinds of amusements except\nreading the Bible, the Confession of Faith, and the creed, and\nlistening to Presbyterian sermons and prayers. All these things\nthey regard as the food of cheerfulness. They warn the elect\nagainst theatres and operas, dancing and games of chance.\n\nWell, if their doctrine is true, there ought to be no theatres,\nexcept exhibitions of hell; there ought to be no operas, except\nwhere the music is a succession of wails for the misfortunes of\nman. If their doctrine is true, I do not see how any human being\ncould ever smile again--I do not see how a mother could welcome\nher babe; everything in nature would become hateful; flowers and\nsunshine would simply tell us of our fate.\n\nMy doctrine is exactly the opposite of this. Let us enjoy ourselves\nevery moment that we can. The love of the dramatic is universal.\nThe stage has not simply amused, but it has elevated mankind. The\ngreatest genius of our world poured the treasures of his soul into\nthe drama. I do not believe that any girl can be corrupted, or\nthat any man can be injured, by becoming acquainted with Isabella\nor Miranda or Juliet or Imogen, or any of the great heroines of\nShakespeare.\n\nSo I regard the opera as one of the great civilizers. No one can\nlisten to the symphonies of Beethoven, or the music of Schubert,\nwithout receiving a benefit. And no one can hear the operas of\nWagner without feeling that he has been ennobled and refined.\n\nWhy is it the Presbyterians are so opposed to music in the world,\nand yet expect to have so much in heaven? Is not music just as\ndemoralizing in the sky as on the earth, and does anybody believe\nthat Abraham or Isaac or Jacob, ever played any music comparable\nto Wagner?\n\nWhy should we postpone our joy to another world? Thousands of\npeople take great pleasure in dancing, and I say let them dance.\nDancing is better than weeping and wailing over a theology born of\nignorance and superstition.\n\nAnd so with games of chance. There is a certain pleasure in playing\ngames, and the pleasure is of the most innocent character. Let\nall these games be played at home and children will not prefer the\nsaloon to the society of their parents. I believe in cards and\nbilliards, and would believe in progressive euchre, were it more\nof a game--the great objection to it is its lack of complexity.\nMy idea is to get what little happiness you can out of this life,\nand to enjoy all sunshine that breaks through the clouds of\nmisfortune. Life is poor enough at best. No one should fail to\npick up every jewel of joy that can be found in his path. Every\none should be as happy as he can, provided he is not happy at the\nexpense of another, and no person rightly constituted can be happy\nat the expense of another.\n\nSo let us get all we can of good between the cradle and the grave;\nall that we can of the truly dramatic; all that we can of music;\nall that we can of art; all that we can of enjoyment; and if, when\ndeath comes, that is the end, we have at least made the best of\nthis life; and if there be another life, let us make the best of\nthat.\n\nI am doing what little I can to hasten the coming of the day when\nthe human race will enjoy liberty--not simply of body, but liberty\nof mind. And by liberty of mind I mean freedom from superstition,\nand added to that, the intelligence to find out the conditions of\nhappiness; and added to that, the wisdom to live in accordance with\nthose conditions.\n\n--_The Morning Advertiser_, New York, June 12, 1891.\n\n\nTHE TENDENCY OF MODERN THOUGHT.\n\n_Question_. Do you regard the Briggs trial as any evidence of the\ngrowth of Liberalism in the church itself?\n\n_Answer_. When men get together, and make what they call a creed,\nthe supposition is that they then say as nearly as possible what\nthey mean and what they believe. A written creed, of necessity,\nremains substantially the same. In a few years this creed ceases\nto give exactly the new shade of thought. Then begin two processes,\none of destruction and the other of preservation. In every church,\nas in every party, and as you may say in every corporation, there\nare two wings--one progressive, the other conservative. In the\nchurch there will be a few, and they will represent the real\nintelligence of the church, who become dissatisfied with the creed,\nand who at first satisfy themselves by giving new meanings to old\nwords. On the other hand, the conservative party appeals to\nemotions, to memories, and to the experiences of their fellow-\nmembers, for the purpose of upholding the old dogmas and the old\nideas; so that each creed is like a crumbling castle. The\nconservatives plant ivy and other vines, hoping that their leaves\nwill hide the cracks and erosions of time; but the thoughtful see\nbeyond these leaves and are satisfied that the structure itself is\nin the process of decay, and that no amount of ivy can restore the\ncrumbling stones.\n\nThe old Presbyterian creed, when it was first formulated, satisfied\na certain religious intellect. At that time people were not very\nmerciful. They had no clear conceptions of justice. Their lives\nwere for the most part hard; most of them suffered the pains and\npangs of poverty; nearly all lived in tyrannical governments and\nwere the sport of nobles and kings. Their idea of God was born of\ntheir surroundings. God, to them, was an infinite king who delighted\nin exhibitions of power. At any rate, their minds were so constructed\nthat they conceived of an infinite being who, billions of years\nbefore the world was, made up his mind as to whom he would save\nand whom he would damn. He not only made up his mind as to the\nnumber he would save, and the number that should be lost, but he\nsaved and damned without the slightest reference to the character\nof the individual. They believed then, and some pretend to believe\nstill, that God damns a man not because he is bad, and that he\nsaves a man not because he is good, but simply for the purpose of\nself-glorification as an exhibition of his eternal justice. It\nwould be impossible to conceive of any creed more horrible than\nthat of the Presbyterians. Although I admit--and I not only admit\nbut I assert--that the creeds of all orthodox Christians are\nsubstantially the same, the Presbyterian creed says plainly what\nit means. There is no hesitation, no evasion. The horrible truth,\nso-called, is stated in the clearest possible language. One would\nthink after reading this creed, that the men who wrote it not only\nbelieved it, but were really glad it was true.\n\nIdeas of justice, of the use of power, of the use of mercy, have\ngreatly changed in the last century. We are beginning dimly to\nsee that each man is the result of an infinite number of conditions,\nof an infinite number of facts, most of which existed before he\nwas born. We are beginning dimly to see that while reason is a\npilot, each soul navigates the mysterious sea filled with tides\nand unknown currents set in motion by ancestors long since dust.\nWe are beginning to see that defects of mind are transmitted\nprecisely the same as defects of body, and in my judgment the time\nis coming when we shall not more think of punishing a man for\nlarceny than for having the consumption. We shall know that the\nthief is a necessary and natural result of conditions, preparing,\nyou may say, the field of the world for the growth of man. We\nshall no longer depend upon accident and ignorance and providence.\nWe shall depend upon intelligence and science.\n\nThe Presbyterian creed is no longer in harmony with the average\nsense of man. It shocks the average mind. It seems too monstrous\nto be true; too horrible to find a lodgment in the mind of the\ncivilized man. The Presbyterian minister who thinks, is giving\nnew meanings to the old words. The Presbyterian minister who feels,\nalso gives new meanings to the old words. Only those who neither\nthink nor feel remain orthodox.\n\nFor many years the Christian world has been engaged in examining\nthe religions of other peoples, and the Christian scholars have\nhad but little trouble in demonstrating the origin of Mohammedanism\nand Buddhism and all other isms except ours. After having examined\nother religions in the light of science, it occurred to some of\nour theologians to examine their own doctrine in the same way, and\nthe result has been exactly the same in both cases. Dr. Briggs,\nas I believe, is a man of education. He is undoubtedly familiar\nwith other religions, and has, to some extent at least, made himself\nfamiliar with the sacred books of other people. Dr. Briggs knows\nthat no human being knows who wrote a line of the Old Testament.\nHe knows as well as he can know anything, for instance, that Moses\nnever wrote one word of the books attributed to him. He knows that\nthe book of Genesis was made by putting two or three stories\ntogether. He also knows that it is not the oldest story, but was\nborrowed. He knows that in this book of Genesis there is not one\nword adapted to make a human being better, or to shed the slightest\nlight on human conduct. He knows, if he knows anything, that the\nMosaic Code, so-called, was, and is, exceedingly barbarous and not\nadapted to do justice between man and man, or between nation and\nnation. He knows that the Jewish people pursued a course adapted\nto destroy themselves; that they refused to make friends with their\nneighbors; that they had not the slightest idea of the rights of\nother people; that they really supposed that the earth was theirs,\nand that their God was the greatest God in the heavens. He also\nknows that there are many thousands of mistakes in the Old Testament\nas translated. He knows that the book of Isaiah is made up of\nseveral books. He knows the same thing in regard to the New\nTestament. He also knows that there were many other books that\nwere once considered sacred that have been thrown away, and that\nnobody knows who wrote a solitary line of the New Testament.\n\nBesides all this, Dr. Briggs knows that the Old and New Testaments\nare filled with interpolations, and he knows that the passages of\nScripture which have been taken as the foundation stones for creeds,\nwere written hundreds of years after the death of Christ. He knows\nwell enough that Christ never said: \"I came not to bring peace,\nbut a sword.\" He knows that the same being never said: \"Thou art\nPeter, and on this rock will I build my church.\" He knows, too,\nthat Christ never said: \"Whosoever believes shall be saved, and\nwhosoever believes not shall be damned.\" He knows that these were\ninterpolations. He knows that the sin against the Holy Ghost is\nanother interpolation. He knows, if he knows anything, that the\ngospel according to John was written long after the rest, and that\nnearly all of the poison and superstition of orthodoxy is in that\nbook. He knows also, if he knows anything, that St. Paul never\nread one of the four gospels.\n\nKnowing all these things, Dr. Briggs has had the honesty to say\nthat there was some trouble about taking the Bible as absolutely\ninspired in word and punctuation. I do not think, however, that\nhe can maintain his own position and still remain a Presbyterian\nor anything like a Presbyterian. He takes the ground, I believe,\nthat there are three sources of knowledge: First, the Bible;\nsecond, the church; third, reason. It seems to me that reason\nshould come first, because if you say the Bible is a source of\nauthority, why do you say it? Do you say this because your reason\nis convinced that it is? If so, then reason is the foundation of\nthat belief. If, again, you say the church is a source of authority,\nwhy do you say so? It must be because its history convinces your\nreason that it is. Consequently, the foundation of that idea is\nreason. At the bottom of this pyramid must be reason, and no man\nis under any obligation to believe that which is unreasonable to\nhim. He may believe things that he cannot prove, but he does not\nbelieve them because they are unreasonable. He believes them\nbecause he thinks they are not unreasonable, not impossible, not\nimprobable. But, after all, reason is the crucible in which every\nfact must be placed, and the result fixes the belief of the\nintelligent man.\n\nIt seems to me that the whole Presbyterian creed must come down\ntogether. It is a scheme based upon certain facts, so-called.\nThere is in it the fall of man. There is in it the scheme of the\natonement, and there is the idea of hell, eternal punishment, and\nthe idea of heaven, eternal reward; and yet, according to their\ncreed, hell is not a punishment and heaven is not a reward. Now,\nif we do away with the fall of man we do away with the atonement;\nthen we do away with all supernatural religion. Then we come back\nto human reason. Personally, I hope that the Presbyterian Church\nwill be advanced enough and splendid enough to be honest, and if\nit is honest, all the gentlemen who amount to anything, who assist\nin the trial of Dr. Briggs, will in all probability agree with him,\nand he will be acquitted. But if they throw aside their reason,\nand remain blindly orthodox, then he will be convicted. To me it\nis simply miraculous that any man should imagine that the Bible is\nthe source of truth. There was a time when all scientific facts\nwere measured by the Bible. That time is past, and now the believers\nin the Bible are doing their best to convince us that it is in\nharmony with science. In other words, I have lived to see a change\nof standards. When I was a boy, science was measured by the Bible.\nNow the Bible is measured by science. This is an immense step.\nSo it is impossible for me to conceive what kind of a mind a man\nhas, who finds in the history of the church the fact that it has\nbeen a source of truth. How can any one come to the conclusion\nthat the Catholic Church has been a source of truth, a source of\nintellectual light? How can anyone believe that the church of John\nCalvin has been a source of truth? If its creed is not true, if\nits doctrines are mistakes, if its dogmas are monstrous delusions,\nhow can it be said to have been a source of truth?\n\nMy opinion is that Dr. Briggs will not be satisfied with the step\nhe has taken. He has turned his face a little toward the light.\nThe farther he walks the harder it will be for him to turn back.\nThe probability is that the orthodox will turn him out, and the\nprocess of driving out men of thought and men of genius will go on\nuntil the remnant will be as orthodox as they are stupid.\n\n_Question_. Do you think mankind is drifting away from the\nsupernatural?\n\n_Answer_. My belief is that the supernatural has had its day.\nThe church must either change or abdicate. That is to say, it must\nkeep step with the progress of the world or be trampled under foot.\nThe church as a power has ceased to exist. To-day it is a matter\nof infinite indifference what the pulpit thinks unless there comes\nthe voice of heresy from the sacred place. Every orthodox minister\nin the United States is listened to just in proportion that he\npreaches heresy. The real, simon-pure, orthodox clergyman delivers\nhis homilies to empty benches, and to a few ancient people who know\nnothing of the tides and currents of modern thought. The orthodox\npulpit to-day has no thought, and the pews are substantially in\nthe same condition. There was a time when the curse of the church\nwhitened the face of a race, but now its anathema is the food of\nlaughter.\n\n_Question_. What, in your judgment, is to be the outcome of the\npresent agitation in religious circles?\n\n_Answer_. My idea is that people more and more are declining the\npostponement of happiness to another world. The general tendency\nis to enjoy the present. All religions have taught men that the\npleasures of this world are of no account; that they are nothing\nbut husks and rags and chaff and disappointment; that whoever\nexpects to be happy in this world makes a mistake; that there is\nnothing on the earth worth striving for; that the principal business\nof mankind should be to get ready to be happy in another world;\nthat the great occupation is to save your soul, and when you get\nit saved, when you are satisfied that you are one of the elect,\nthen pack up all your worldly things in a very small trunk, take\nit to the dock of time that runs out into the ocean of eternity,\nsit down on it, and wait for the ship of death. And of course each\nchurch is the only one that sells a through ticket which can be\ndepended on. In all religions, as far as I know, is an admixture\nof asceticism, and the greater the quantity, the more beautiful\nthe religion has been considered, The tendency of the world to-\nday is to enjoy life while you have it; it is to get something out\nof the present moment; and we have found that there are things\nworth living for even in this world. We have found that a man can\nenjoy himself with wife and children; that he can be happy in the\nacquisition of knowledge; that he can be very happy in assisting\nothers; in helping those he loves; that there is some joy in poetry,\nin science and in the enlargement and development of the mind; that\nthere is some delight in music and in the drama and in the arts.\nWe are finding, poor as the world is, that it beats a promise the\nfulfillment of which is not to take place until after death. The\nworld is also finding out another thing, and that is that the\ngentlemen who preach these various religions, and promise these\nrewards, and threaten the punishments, know nothing whatever of\nthe subject; that they are as blindly ignorant as the people they\npretend to teach, and the people are as blindly ignorant as the\nanimals below them. We have finally concluded that no human being\nhas the slightest conception of origin or of destiny, and that this\nlife, not only in its commencement but in its end, is just as\nmysterious to-day as it was to the first man whose eyes greeted\nthe rising sun. We are no nearer the solution of the problem than\nthose who lived thousands of years before us, and we are just as\nnear it as those who will live millions of years after we are dead.\nSo many people having arrived at the conclusion that nobody knows\nand that nobody can know, like sensible folks they have made up\ntheir minds to enjoy life. I have often said, and I say again,\nthat I feel as if I were on a ship not knowing the port from which\nit sailed, not knowing the harbor to which it was going, not having\na speaking acquaintance with any of the officers, and I have made\nup my mind to have as good a time with the other passengers as\npossible under the circumstances. If this ship goes down in mid-\nsea I have at least made something, and if it reaches a harbor of\nperpetual delight I have lost nothing, and I have had a happy\nvoyage. And I think millions and millions are agreeing with me.\n\nNow, understand, I am not finding fault with any of these religions\nor with any of these ministers. These religions and these ministers\nare the necessary and natural products of sufficient causes.\nMankind has traveled from barbarism to what we now call civilization,\nby many paths, all of which under the circumstances, were absolutely\nnecessary; and while I think the individual does as he must, I\nthink the same of the church, of the corporation, and of the nation,\nand not only of the nation, but of the whole human race. Consequently\nI have no malice and no prejudices. I have likes and dislikes.\nI do not blame a gourd for not being a cantaloupe, but I like\ncantaloupes. So I do not blame the old hard-shell Presbyterian\nfor not being a philosopher, but I like philosophers. So to wind\nit all up with regard to the tendency of modern thought, or as to\nthe outcome of what you call religion, my own belief is that what\nis known as religion will disappear from the human mind. And by\n\"religion\" I mean the supernatural. By \"religion\" I mean living\nin this world for another, or living in this world to gratify some\nsupposed being, whom we never saw and about whom we know nothing,\nand of whose existence we know nothing. In other words, religion\nconsists of the duties we are supposed to owe to the first great\ncause, and of certain things necessary for us to do here to insure\nhappiness hereafter. These ideas, in my judgment, are destined to\nperish, and men will become convinced that all their duties are\nwithin their reach, and that obligations can exist only between\nthem and other sentient beings. Another idea, I think, will force\nitself upon the mind, which is this: That he who lives the best\nfor this world lives the best for another if there be one. In\nother words, humanity will take the place of what is called\n\"religion.\" Science will displace superstition, and to do justice\nwill be the ambition of man.\n\nMy creed is this: Happiness is the only good. The place to be\nhappy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy\nis to make others so.\n\n_Question_. What is going to take the place of the pulpit?\n\n_Answer_. I have for a long time wondered why somebody didn't\nstart a church on a sensible basis. My idea is this: There are,\nof course, in every community, lawyers, doctors, merchants, and\npeople of all trades and professions who have not the time during\nthe week to pay any particular attention to history, poetry, art,\nor song. Now, it seems to me that it would be a good thing to have\na church and for these men to employ a man of ability, of talent,\nto preach to them Sundays, and let this man say to his congregation:\n\"Now, I am going to preach to you for the first few Sundays--eight\nor ten or twenty, we will say--on the art, poetry, and intellectual\nachievements of the Greeks.\" Let this man study all the week and\ntell his congregation Sunday what he has ascertained. Let him give\nto his people the history of such men as Plato, as Socrates, what\nthey did; of Aristotle, of his philosophy; of the great Greeks,\ntheir statesmen, their poets, actors, and sculptors, and let him\nshow the debt that modern civilization owes to these people. Let\nhim, too, give their religions, their mythology--a mythology that\nhas sown the seed of beauty in every land. Then let him take up\nRome. Let him show what a wonderful and practical people they\nwere; let him give an idea of their statesmen, orators, poets,\nlawyers--because probably the Romans were the greatest lawyers.\nAnd so let him go through with nation after nation, biography after\nbiography, and at the same time let there be a Sunday school\nconnected with this church where the children shall be taught\nsomething of importance. For instance, teach them botany, and when\na Sunday is fair, clear, and beautiful, let them go into the fields\nand woods with their teachers, and in a little while they will\nbecome acquainted with all kinds of tress and shrubs and flowering\nplants. They could also be taught entomology, so that every bug\nwould be interesting, for they would see the facts in science--\nsomething of use to them. I believe that such a church and such\na Sunday school would at the end of a few years be the most\nintelligent collection of people in the United States. To teach\nthe children all of these things and to teach their parents, too,\nthe outlines of every science, so that every listener would know\nsomething of geology, something of astronomy, so that every member\ncould tell the manner in which they find the distance of a star--\nhow much better that would be than the old talk about Abraham,\nIsaac, and Jacob, and quotations from Haggai and Zephaniah, and\nall this eternal talk about the fall of man and the Garden of Eden,\nand the flood, and the atonement, and the wonders of Revelation!\nEven if the religious scheme be true, it can be told and understood\nas well in one day as in a hundred years. The church says, \"He\nthat hath ears to hear let him hear.\" I say: \"He that hath brains\nto think, let him think.\" So, too, the pulpit is being displaced\nby what we call places of amusement, which are really places where\nmen go because they find there is something which satisfies in a\ngreater or less degree the hunger of the brain. Never before was\nthe theatre as popular as it is now. Never before was so much\nmoney lavished upon the stage as now. Very few men having their\nchoice would go to hear a sermon, especially of the orthodox kind,\nwhen they had a chance to see a great actor.\n\nThe man must be a curious combination who would prefer an orthodox\nsermon, we will say, to a concert given by Theodore Thomas. And\nI may say in passing that I have great respect for Theodore Thomas,\nbecause it was he who first of all opened to the American people\nthe golden gates of music. He made the American people acquainted\nwith the great masters, and especially with Wagner, and it is a\ndebt that we shall always owe him. In this day the opera--that is\nto say, music in every form--is tending to displace the pulpit.\nThe pulpits have to go in partnership with music now. Hundreds of\npeople have excused themselves to me for going to church, saying\nthey have splendid music. Long ago the Catholic Church was forced\nto go into partnership not only with music, but with painting and\nwith architecture. The Protestant Church for a long time thought\nit could do without these beggarly elements, and the Protestant\nChurch was simply a dry-goods box with a small steeple on top of\nit, its walls as bleak and bare and unpromising as the creed. But\neven Protestants have been forced to hire a choir of ungodly people\nwho happen to have beautiful voices, and they, too, have appealed\nto the organ. Music is taking the place of creed, and there is\nmore real devotional feeling summoned from the temple of the mind\nby great music than by any sermon ever delivered. Music, of all\nother things, gives wings to thought and allows the soul to rise\nabove all the pains and troubles of this life, and to feel for a\nmoment as if it were absolutely free, above all clouds, destined\nto enjoy forever. So, too, science is beckoning with countless\nhands. Men of genius are everywhere beckoning men to discoveries,\npromising them fortunes compared with which Aladdin's lamp was weak\nand poor. All these things take men from the church; take men from\nthe pulpit. In other words, prosperity is the enemy of the pulpit.\nWhen men enjoy life, when they are prosperous here, they are in\nlove with the arts, with the sciences, with everything that gives\njoy, with everything that promises plenty, and they care nothing\nabout the prophecies of evil that fall from the solemn faces of\nthe parsons. They look in other directions. They are not thinking\nabout the end of the world. They hate the lugubrious, and they\nenjoy the sunshine of to-day. And this, in my judgment, is the\nhighest philosophy: First, do not regret having lost yesterday;\nsecond, do not fear that you will lose to-morrow; third, enjoy to-\nday.\n\nAstrology was displaced by astronomy. Alchemy and the black art\ngave way to chemistry. Science is destined to take the place of\nsuperstition. In my judgment, the religion of the future will be\nReason.\n\n--_The Tribune_, Chicago, Illinois, November, 1891.\n\n\nWOMAN SUFFRAGE, HORSE RACING, AND MONEY.\n\n_Question_. What are your opinions on the woman's suffrage\nquestion?\n\n_Answer_. I claim no right that I am not willing to give to my\nwife and daughters, and to the wives and daughters of other men.\nWe shall never have a generation of great men until we have a\ngeneration of great women. I do not regard ignorance as the\nfoundation of virtue, or uselessness as one of the requisites of\na lady. I am a believer in equal rights. Those who are amenable\nto the laws should have a voice in making the laws. In every\ndepartment where woman has had an equal opportunity with man, she\nhas shown that she has equal capacity.\n\nGeorge Sand was a great writer, George Eliot one of the greatest,\nMrs. Browning a marvelous poet--and the lyric beauty of her \"Mother\nand Poet\" is greater than anything her husband ever wrote--Harriet\nMartineau a wonderful woman, and Ouida is probably the greatest\nliving novelist, man or woman. Give the women a chance.\n\n[The Colonel's recent election as a life member of the Manhattan\nAthletic Club, due strangely enough to a speech of his denouncing\ncertain forms of sport, was referred to, and this led him to express\nhis contempt for prize-fighting, and then he said on the subject of\nhorse-racing: ]\n\nThe only objection I have to horse racing is its cruelty. The whip\nand spur should be banished from the track. As long as these are\nused, the race track will breed a very low and heartless set of\nmen. I hate to see a brute whip and spur a noble animal. The good\npeople object to racing, because of the betting, but bad people,\nlike myself, object to the cruelty. Men are not forced to bet.\nThat is their own business, but the poor horse, straining every\nnerve, does not ask for the lash and iron. Abolish torture on the\ntrack and let the best horse win.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the Chilian insult to the United\nStates flag?\n\n_Answer_. In the first place, I think that our Government was\nwrong in taking the part of Balmaceda. In the next place, we made\na mistake in seizing the Itata. America should always side with\nthe right. We should care nothing for the pretender in power, and\nBalmaceda was a cruel, tyrannical scoundrel. We should be with\nthe people everywhere. I do not blame Chili for feeling a little\nrevengeful. We ought to remember that Chili is weak, and nations,\nlike individuals, are sensitive in proportion that they are weak.\nLet us trust Chili just as we would England. We are too strong to\nbe unjust.\n\n_Question_. How do you stand on the money question?\n\n_Answer_. I am with the Republican party on the question of money.\nI am for the use of gold and silver both, but I want a dollar's\nworth of silver in a silver dollar. I do not believe in light money,\nor in cheap money, or in poor money. These are all contradictions\nin terms. Congress cannot fix the value of money. The most it\ncan do is to fix its debt paying power. It is beyond the power of\nany Congress to fix the purchasing value of what it may be pleased\nto call money. Nobody knows, so far as I know, why people want\ngold. I do not know why people want silver. I do not know how\ngold came to be money; neither do I understand the universal desire,\nbut it exists, and we take things as we find them. Gold and silver\nmake up, you may say, the money of the world, and I believe in\nusing the two metals. I do not believe in depreciating any American\nproduct; but as value cannot be absolutely fixed by law, so far as\nthe purchasing power is concerned, and as the values of gold and\nsilver vary, neither being stable any more than the value of wheat\nor corn is stable, I believe that legislation should keep pace\nwithin a reasonable distance at least, of the varying values, and\nthat the money should be kept as nearly equal as possible. Of\ncourse, there is one trouble with money to-day, and that is the\nuse of the word \"dollar.\" It has lost its meaning. So many\ngovernments have adulterated their own coin, and as many have\nchanged weights, that the word \"dollar\" has not to-day an absolute,\ndefinite, specific meaning. Like individuals, nations have been\ndishonest. The only time the papal power had the right to coin\nmoney--I believe it was under Pius IX., when Antonelli was his\nminister--the coin of the papacy was so debased that even orthodox\nCatholics refused to take it, and it had to be called in and minted\nby the French Empire, before even the Italians recognized it as\nmoney. My own opinion is, that either the dollar must be absolutely\ndefined--it must be the world over so many grains of pure gold, or\nso many grains of pure silver--or we must have other denominations\nfor our money, as for instance, ounces, or parts of ounces, and\nthe time will come, in my judgment, when there will be a money of\nthe world, the same everywhere; because each coin will contain\nupon its face the certificate of a government that it contains such\na weight--so many grains or so many ounces--of a certain metal.\nI, for one, want the money of the United States to be as good as\nthat of any other country. I want its gold and silver exactly what\nthey purport to be; and I want the paper issued by the Government\nto be the same as gold. I want its credit so perfectly established\nthat it will be taken in every part of the habitable globe. I am\nwith the Republican party on the question of money, also on the\nquestion of protection, and all I hope is that the people of this\ncountry will have sense enough to defend their own interests.\n\n--_The Inter-Ocean_, Chicago, Illinois, October 27, 1891.\n\n\nMISSIONARIES.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of foreign missions?\n\n_Answer_. In the first place, there seems to be a pretty good\nopening in this country for missionary work. We have a good many\nIndians who are not Methodists. I have never known one to be\nconverted. A good many have been killed by Christians, but their\nsouls have not been saved. Maybe the Methodists had better turn\ntheir attention to the heathen of our own country. Then we have\na good many Mormons who rely on the truth of the Old Testament and\nfollow the example of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It seems to me\nthat the Methodists better convert the Mormons before attacking\nthe tribes of Central Africa. There is plenty of work to be done\nright here. A few good bishops might be employed for a time in\nconverting Dr. Briggs and Professor Swing, to say nothing of other\nheretical Presbyterians.\n\nThere is no need of going to China to convert the Chinese. There\nare thousands of them here. In China our missionaries will tell\nthe followers of Confucius about the love and forgiveness of\nChristians, and when the Chinese come here they are robbed, assaulted,\nand often murdered. Would it not be a good thing for the Methodists\nto civilize our own Christians to such a degree that they would\nnot murder a man simply because he belongs to another race and\nworships other gods?\n\nSo, too, I think it would be a good thing for the Methodists to go\nSouth and persuade their brethren in that country to treat the\ncolored people with kindness. A few efforts might be made to\nconvert the \"White-caps\" in Ohio, Indiana and some other States.\n\nMy advice to the Methodists is to do what little good they can\nright here and now. It seems cruel to preach to the heathen a\ngospel that is dying out even here, and fill their poor minds with\nthe absurd dogmas and cruel creeds that intelligent men have outgrown\nand thrown away.\n\nHonest commerce will do a thousand times more good than all the\nmissionaries on earth. I do not believe that an intelligent Chinaman\nor an intelligent Hindoo has ever been or ever will be converted\ninto a Methodist. If Methodism is good we need it here, and if it\nis not good, do not fool the heathen with it.\n\n--_The Press_, Cleveland, Ohio, November 12, 1891.\n\n\nMY BELIEF AND UNBELIEF.*\n\n[* Col. Robert G. Ingersoll was in Toledo for a few hours yesterday\nafternoon on railroad business. Whatever Mr. Ingersoll says is\nalways read with interest, for besides the independence of his\naverments, his ideas are worded in a way that in itself is attractive.\n\nWhile in the court room talking with some of the officials and\nothers, he was saying that in this world there is rather an unequal\ndistribution of comforts, rewards, and punishments. For himself,\nhe had fared pretty well. He stated that during the thirty years\nhe has been married there have been fifteen to twenty of his\nrelatives under the same roof, but never had there been in his\nfamily a death or a night's loss of sleep on account of sickness.\n\n\"The Lord has been pretty good to you,\" suggested Marshall Wade.\n\n\"Well, I've been pretty good to him,\" he answered.]\n\n_Question_. I have heard people in discussing yourself and your\nviews, express the belief that way down in the depths of your mind\nyou are not altogether a \"disbeliever.\" Are they in any sense\ncorrect?\n\n_Answer_. I am an unbeliever, and I am a believer. I do not\nbelieve in the miraculous, the supernatural, or the impossible.\nI do not believe in the \"Mosaic\" account of the creation, or in\nthe flood, or the Tower of Babel, or that General Joshua turned\nback the sun or stopped the earth. I do not believe in the Jonah\nstory, or that God and the Devil troubled poor Job. Neither do I\nbelieve in the Mt. Sinai business, and I have my doubts about the\nbroiled quails furnished in the wilderness. Neither do I believe\nthat man is wholly depraved. I have not the least faith in the\nEden, snake and apple story. Neither do I believe that God is an\neternal jailer; that he is going to be the warden of an everlasting\npenitentiary in which the most of men are to be eternally tormented.\nI do not believe that any man can be justly punished or rewarded\non account of his belief.\n\nBut I do believe in the nobility of human nature. I believe in\nlove and home, and kindness and humanity. I believe in good\nfellowship and cheerfulness, in making wife and children happy.\nI believe in good nature, in giving to others all the rights that\nyou claim for yourself. I believe in free thought, in reason,\nobservation and experience. I believe in self-reliance and in\nexpressing your honest thought. I have hope for the whole human\nrace. What will happen to one, will, I hope, happen to all, and\nthat, I hope, will be good. Above all, I believe in Liberty.\n\n--_The Blade_, Toledo, Ohio, January 9, 1892.\n\n\nMUST RELIGION GO?\n\n_Question_. What is your idea as to the difference between honest\nbelief, as held by honest religious thinkers, and heterodoxy?\n\n_Answer_. Of course, I believe that there are thousands of men\nand women who honestly believe not only in the improbable, not only\nin the absurd, but in the impossible. Heterodoxy, so-called,\noccupies the half-way station between superstition and reason. A\nheretic is one who is still dominated by religion, but in the east\nof whose mind there is a dawn. He is one who has seen the morning\nstar; he has not entire confidence in the day, and imagines in some\nway that even the light he sees was born of the night. In the mind\nof the heretic, darkness and light are mingled, the ties of\nintellectual kindred bind him to the night, and yet he has enough\nof the spirit of adventure to look toward the east. Of course, I\nadmit that Christians and heretics are both honest; a real Christian\nmust be honest and a real heretic must be the same. All men must\nbe honest in what they think; but all men are not honest in what\nthey say. In the invisible world of the mind every man is honest.\nThe judgment never was bribed. Speech may be false, but conviction\nis always honest. So that the difference between honest belief,\nas shared by honest religious thinkers and heretics, is a difference\nof intelligence. It is the difference between a ship lashed to\nthe dock, and on making a voyage; it is the difference between\ntwilight and dawn--that is to say, the coming of the sight and the\ncoming of the morning.\n\n_Question_. Are women becoming freed from the bonds of sectarianism?\n\n_Answer_. Women are less calculating than men. As a rule they do\nnot occupy the territory of compromise. They are natural extremists.\nThe woman who is not dominated by superstition is apt to be absolutely\nfree, and when a woman has broken the shackles of superstition,\nshe has no apprehension, no fears. She feels that she is on the\nopen sea, and she cares neither for wind nor wave. An emancipated\nwoman never can be re-enslaved. Her heart goes with her opinions,\nand goes first.\n\n_Question_. Do you consider that the influence of religion is\nbetter than the influence of Liberalism upon society, that is to\nsay, is society less or more moral, is vice more or less\nconspicuous?\n\n_Answer_. Whenever a chain is broken an obligation takes its place.\nThere is and there can be no responsibility without liberty. The\nfreer a man is, the more responsible, the more accountable he feels;\nconsequently the more liberty there is, the more morality there\nis. Believers in religion teach us that God will reward men for\ngood actions, but men who are intellectually free, know that the\nreward of a good action cannot be given by any power, but that it\nis the natural result of the good action. The free man, guided by\nintelligence, knows that his reward is in the nature of things,\nand not in the caprice even of the Infinite. He is not a good and\nfaithful servant, he is an intelligent free man.\n\nThe vicious are ignorant; real morality is the child of intelligence;\nthe free and intelligent man knows that every action must be judged\nby its consequences; he knows that if he does good he reaps a good\nharvest; he knows that if he does evil he bears a burden, and he\nknows that these good and evil consequences are not determined by\nan infinite master, but that they live in and are produced by the\nactions themselves.\n\n--_Evening Advertiser_, New York, February 6, 1892.\n\n\nWORD PAINTING AND COLLEGE EDUCATION.\n\n_Question_. What is the history of the speech delivered here in\n1876? Was it extemporaneous?\n\n_Answer_. It was not born entirely of the occasion. It took me\nseveral years to put the thoughts in form--to paint the pictures\nwith words. No man can do his best on the instant. Iron to be\nbeaten into perfect form has to be heated several times and turned\nupon the anvil many more, and hammered long and often.\n\nYou might as well try to paint a picture with one sweep of the\nbrush, or chisel a statue with one stroke, as to paint many pictures\nwith words, without great thought and care. Now and then, while\na man is talking, heated with his subject, a great thought, sudden\nas a flash of lightning, illumines the intellectual sky, and a\ngreat sentence clothed in words of purple, falls, or rather rushes,\nfrom his lips--but a continuous flight is born, not only of\nenthusiasm, but of long and careful thought. A perfect picture\nrequires more details, more lights and shadows, than the mind can\ngrasp at once, or on the instant. Thoughts are not born of chance.\nThey grow and bud and blossom, and bear the fruit of perfect form.\n\nGenius is the soil and climate, but the soil must be cultivated,\nand the harvest is not instantly after the planting. It takes time\nand labor to raise and harvest a crop from that field called the\nbrain.\n\n_Question_. Do you think young men need a college education to\nget along?\n\n_Answer_. Probably many useless things are taught in colleges.\nI think, as a rule, too much time is wasted learning the names of\nthe cards without learning to play a game. I think a young man\nshould be taught something that he can use--something he can sell.\nAfter coming from college he should be better equipped to battle\nwith the world--to do something of use. A man may have his brain\nstuffed with Greek and Latin without being able to fill his stomach\nwith anything of importance. Still, I am in favor of the highest\neducation. I would like to see splendid schools in every State,\nand then a university, and all scholars passing a certain examination\nsent to the State university free, and then a United States\nuniversity, the best in the world, and all graduates of the State\nuniversities passing a certain examination sent to the United States\nuniversity free. We ought to have in this country the best library,\nthe best university, the best school of design in the world; and\nso I say, more money for the mind.\n\n_Question_. Was the peculiar conduct of the Rev. Dr. Parkhurst,\nof New York, justifiable, and do you think that it had a tendency\nto help morality?\n\n_Answer_. If Christ had written a decoy letter to the woman to\nwhom he said: \"Go and sin no more,\" and if he had disguised himself\nand visited her house and had then lodged a complaint against her\nbefore the police and testified against her, taking one of his\ndisciples with him, I do not think he would have added to his\nreputation.\n\n--_The News_, Indianapolis, Indiana, February 18, 1892.\n\n\nPERSONAL MAGNETISM AND THE SUNDAY QUESTION.\n\n[Colonel Ingersoll was a picturesque figure as he sat in his room\nat the Gibson House yesterday, while the balmy May breeze blew\nthrough the open windows, fluttered the lace curtains and tossed\nthe great Infidel's snowy hair to and fro. The Colonel had come in\nfrom New York during the morning and the keen white sunlight of a\nlovely May day filled his heart with gladness. After breakfast,\nthe man who preaches the doctrine of the Golden Rule and the Gospel\nof Humanity and the while chaffs the gentlemen of the clerical\nprofession, was in a fine humor. He was busy with cards and callers,\nbut not too busy to admire the vase full of freshly-picked spring\nflowers that stood on the mantel, and wrestled with clouds of cigar\nsmoke, to see which fragrance should dominate the atmosphere.\n\nTo a reporter of _The Commercial Gazette_, the Colonel spoke freely\nand interestingly upon a variety of subjects, from personal magnetism\nin politics to mob rule in Tennessee. He had been interested in\nColonel Weir's statement about the lack of gas in Exposition Hall,\nat the 1876 convention, and when asked if he believed there was\nany truth in the stories that the gas supply had been manipulated\nso as to prevent the taking of a ballot after he had placed James\nG. Blaine in nomination, he replied: ]\n\nAll I can say is, that I heard such a story the day after the\nconvention, but I do not know whether or not it is true. I have\nalways believed, that if a vote had been taken that evening, Blaine\nwould have been nominated, possibly not as the effect of my speech,\nbut the night gave time for trafficking, and that is always dangerous\nin a convention. I believed then that Blaine ought to have been\nnominated, and that it would have been a very wise thing for the\nparty to have done. That he was not the candidate was due partly\nto accident and partly to political traffic, but that is one of\nthe bygones, and I believe there is an old saying to the effect\nthat even the gods have no mastery over the past.\n\n_Question_. Do you think that eloquence is potent in a convention\nto set aside the practical work of politics and politicians?\n\n_Answer_. I think that all the eloquence in the world cannot affect\na trade if the parties to the contract stand firm, and when people\nhave made a political trade they are not the kind of people to be\naffected by eloquence. The practical work of the world has very\nlittle to do with eloquence. There are a great many thousand stone\nmasons to one sculptor, and houses and walls are not constructed\nby sculptors, but by masons. The daily wants of the world are\nsupplied by the practical workers, by men of talent, not by men of\ngenius, although in the world of invention, genius has done more,\nit may be, than the workers themselves. I fancy the machinery now\nin the world does the work of many hundreds of millions; that there\nis machinery enough now to do several times the work that could be\ndone by all the men, women and children of the earth. The genius\nwho invented the reaper did more work and will do more work in the\nharvest field than thousands of millions of men, and the same may\nbe said of the great engines that drive the locomotives and the\nships. All these marvelous machines were made by men of genius,\nbut they are not the men who in fact do the work.\n\n[This led the Colonel to pay a brilliant tribute to the great\norators of ancient and modern times, the peer of all of them being\nCicero. He dissected and defined oratory and eloquence, and\nexplained with picturesque figures, wherein the difference between\nthem lay. As he mentioned the magnetism of public speakers, he was\nasked as to his opinion of the value of personal magnetism in\npolitical life.]\n\nIt may be difficult to define what personal magnetism is, but I\nthink it may be defined in this way: You don't always feel like\nasking a man whom you meet on the street what direction you should\ntake to reach a certain point. You often allow three or four to\npass, before you meet one who seems to invite the question. So,\ntoo, there are men by whose side you may sit for hours in the cars\nwithout venturing a remark as to the weather, and there are others\nto whom you will commence talking the moment you sit down. There\nare some men who look as if they would grant a favor, men toward\nwhom you are unconsciously drawn, men who have a real human look,\nmen with whom you seem to be acquainted almost before you speak,\nand that you really like before you know anything about them. It\nmay be that we are all electric batteries; that we have our positive\nand our negative poles; it may be that we need some influence that\ncertain others impart, and it may be that certain others have that\nwhich we do not need and which we do not want, and the moment you\nthink that, you feel annoyed and hesitate, and uncomfortable, and\npossibly hateful.\n\nI suppose there is a physical basis for everything. Possibly the\nbest test of real affection between man and woman, or of real\nfriendship between man and woman, is that they can sit side by\nside, for hours maybe, without speaking, and yet be having a really\nsocial time, each feeling that the other knows exactly what they\nare thinking about. Now, the man you meet and whom you would not\nhesitate a moment to ask a favor of, is what I call a magnetic man.\nThis magnetism, or whatever it may be, assists in making friends,\nand of course is a great help to any one who deals with the public.\nMen like a magnetic man even without knowing him, perhaps simply\nhaving seen him. There are other men, whom the moment you shake\nhands with them, you feel you want no more; you have had enough.\nA sudden chill runs up the arm the moment your hand touches theirs,\nand finally reaches the heart; you feel, if you had held that hand\na moment longer, an icicle would have formed in the brain. Such\npeople lack personal magnetism. These people now and then thaw\nout when you get thoroughly acquainted with them, and you find that\nthe ice is all on the outside, and then you come to like them very\nwell, but as a rule first impressions are lasting. Magnetism is\nwhat you might call the climate of a man. Some men, and some women,\nlook like a perfect June day, and there are others who, while the\nlook quite smiling, yet you feel that the sky is becoming overcast,\nand the signs all point to an early storm. There are people who\nare autumnal--that is to say, generous. They have had their harvest,\nand have plenty to spare. Others look like the end of an exceedingly\nhard winter--between the hay and grass, the hay mostly gone and\nthe grass not yet come up. So you will see that I think a great\ndeal of this thing that is called magnetism. As I said, there are\ngood people who are not magnetic, but I do not care to make an\nArctic expedition for the purpose of discovering the north pole of\ntheir character. I would rather stay with those who make me feel\ncomfortable at the first.\n\n[From personal magnetism to the lynching Saturday morning down at\nNashville, Tennessee, was a far cry, but when Colonel Ingersoll\nwas asked what he thought of mob law, whether there was any\nextenuation, any propriety and moral effect resultant from it, he\nquickly answered: ]\n\nI do not believe in mob law at any time, among any people. I\nbelieve in justice being meted out in accordance with the forms of\nlaw. If a community violates that law, why should not the individual?\nThe example is bad. Besides all that, no punishment inflicted by\na mob tends to prevent the commission of crime. Horrible punishment\nhardens the community, and that in itself produces more crime.\n\nThere seems to be a sort of fascination in frightful punishments,\nbut, to say the least of it, all these things demoralize the\ncommunity. In some countries, you know, they whip people for petty\noffences. The whipping, however, does no good, and on the other\nhand it does harm; it hardens those who administer the punishment\nand those who witness it, and it degrades those who receive it.\nThere will be but little charity in the world, and but little\nprogress until men see clearly that there is no chance in the world\nof conduct any more than in the physical world.\n\nBack of every act and dream and thought and desire and virtue and\ncrime is the efficient cause. If you wish to change mankind, you\nmust change the conditions. There should be no such thing as\npunishment. We should endeavor to reform men, and those who cannot\nbe reformed should be placed where they cannot injure their fellows.\nThe State should never take revenge any more than the community\nshould form itself into a mob and take revenge. This does harm,\nnot good. The time will come when the world will no more think of\nsending men to the penitentiary for stealing, as a punishment, that\nit will for sending a man to the penitentiary because he has\nconsumption. When that time comes, the object will be to reform\nmen; to prevent crime instead of punishing it, and the object then\nwill be to make the conditions such that honest people will be the\nresult, but as long as hundreds of thousands of human beings live\nin tenements, as long as babes are raised in gutters, as long as\ncompetition is so sharp that hundreds of thousands must of necessity\nbe failures, just so long as society gets down on its knees before\nthe great and successful thieves, before the millionaire thieves,\njust so long will it have to fill the jails and prisons with the\nlittle thieves. When the \"good time\" comes, men will not be judged\nby the money they have accumulated, but by the uses they make of\nit. So men will be judged, not according to their intelligence,\nbut by what they are endeavoring to accomplish with their intelligence.\nIn other words, the time will come when character will rise above\nall. There is a great line in Shakespeare that I have often quoted,\nand that cannot be quoted too often: \"There is no darkness but\nignorance.\" Let the world set itself to work to dissipate this\ndarkness; let us flood the world with intellectual light. This\ncannot be accomplished by mobs or lynchers. It must be done by\nthe noblest, by the greatest, and by the best.\n\n[The conversation shifting around to the Sunday question; the\nopening of the World's Fair on Sunday, the attacks of the pulpit\nupon the Sunday newspapers, the opening of parks and museums and\nlibraries on Sunday, Colonel Ingersoll waxed eloquent, and in answer\nto many questions uttered these paragraphs: ]\n\nOf course, people will think that I have some prejudice against\nthe parsons, but really I think the newspaper press is of far more\nimportance in the world than the pulpit. If I should admit in a\nkind of burst of generosity, and simply for the sake of making a\npoint, that the pulpit can do some good, how much can it do without\nthe aid of the press? Here is a parson preaching to a few ladies\nand enough men, it may be, to pass the contribution box, and all\nhe says dies within the four walls of that church. How many\nministers would it take to reform the world, provided I again admit\nin a burst of generosity, that there is any reforming power in what\nthey preach, working along that line?\n\nThe Sunday newspaper, I think, is the best of any day in the week.\nThat paper keeps hundreds and thousands at home. You can find in\nit information about almost everything in the world. One of the\ngreat Sunday papers will keep a family busy reading almost all day.\nNow, I do not wonder that the ministers are so opposed to the Sunday\nnewspaper, and so they are opposed to anything calculated to decrease\nthe attendance at church. Why, they want all the parks, all the\nmuseums, all the libraries closed on Sunday, and they want the\nWorld's Fair closed on Sunday.\n\nNow, I am in favor of Sunday; in fact, I am perfectly willing to\nhave two of them a week, but I want Sunday as a day of recreation\nand pleasure. The fact is we ought not to work hard enough during\nthe week to require a day of rest. Every day ought to be so arranged\nthat there would be time for rest from the labor of that day.\nSunday is a good day to get business out of your mind, to forget\nthe ledger and the docket and the ticker, to forget profits and\nlosses, and enjoy yourself. It is a good day to go to the art\nmuseums, to look at pictures and statues and beautiful things, so\nthat you may feel that there is something in this world besides\nmoney and mud. It is a good day, is Sunday, to go to the libraries\nand spend a little time with the great and splendid dead, and to\ngo to the cemetery and think of those who are sleeping there, and\nto give a little thought to the time when you, too, like them, will\nfall asleep. I think it is a good day for almost anything except\ngoing to church. There is no need of that; everybody knows the\nstory, and if a man has worked hard all the week, you can hardly\ncall it recreation if he goes to church Sunday and hears that his\nchances are ninety-nine in a hundred in favor of being eternally\ndamned.\n\nSo it is I am in favor of having the World's Fair open on Sunday.\nIt will be a good day to look at the best the world has produced;\na good day to leave the saloons and commune for a little while with\nthe mighty spirits that have glorified this world. Sunday is a\ngood day to leave the churches, where they teach that man has become\ntotally depraved, and look at the glorious things that have been\nwrought by these depraved beings. Besides all this, it is the day\nof days for the working man and working woman, for those who have\nto work all the week. In New York an attempt was made to open the\nMetropolitan Museum of Art on Sunday, and the pious people opposed\nit. They thought it would interfere with the joy of heaven if\npeople were seen in the park enjoying themselves on Sunday, and\nthey also held that nobody would visit the Museum if it were opened\non Sunday; that the \"common people\" had no love for pictures and\nstatues and cared nothing about art. The doors were opened, and\nit was demonstrated that the poor people, the toilers and workers,\ndid want to see such things on Sunday, and now more people visit\nthe Museum on Sunday than on all the other days of the week put\ntogether. The same is true of the public libraries. There is\nsomething to me infinitely pharisaical, hypocritical and farcical\nin this Sunday nonsense. The rich people who favor keeping Sunday\n\"holy,\" have their coachman drive them to church and wait outside\nuntil the services end. What do they care about the coachman's\nsoul? While they are at church their cooks are busy at home getting\ndinner ready. What do they care for the souls of cooks? The whole\nthing is pretence, and nothing but pretence. It is the instinct\nof business. It is the competition of the gospel shop with other\nshops and places of resort.\n\nThe ministers, of course, are opposed to all shows except their\nown, for they know that very few will come to see or hear them and\nthe choice must be the church or nothing.\n\nI do not believe that one day can be more holy than another unless\nmore joyous than another. The holiest day is the happiest day--\nthe day on which wives and children and men are happiest. In that\nsense a day can be holy.\n\nOur idea of the Sabbath is from the Puritans, and they imagined\nthat a man has to be miserable in order to excite the love of God.\nWe have outgrown the old New England Sabbath--the old Scotch horror.\nThe Germans have helped us and have set a splendid example. I do\nnot see how a poor workingman can go to church for recreation--I\nmean an orthodox church. A man who has hell here cannot be benefitted\nby being assured that he is likely to have hell hereafter. The\nwhole business I hold in perfect abhorrence.\n\nThey tell us that God will not prosper us unless we observe the\nSabbath. The Jews kept the Sabbath and yet Jehovah deserted them,\nand they are a people without a nation. The Scotch kept Sunday;\nthey are not independent. The French never kept Sunday, and yet\nthey are the most prosperous nation in Europe.\n\n--_Commercial Gazette_, Cincinnati, Ohio, May 2, 1892.\n\n\nAUTHORS.\n\n_Question_. Who, in your opinion, is the greatest novelist who\nhas written in the English language?\n\n_Answer_. The greatest novelist, in my opinion, who has ever\nwritten in the English language, was Charles Dickens. He was the\ngreatest observer since Shakespeare. He had the eyes that see,\nthe ears that really hear. I place him above Thackeray. Dickens\nwrote for the home, for the great public. Thackeray wrote for the\nclubs. The greatest novel in our language--and it may be in any\nother--is, according to my ideas, \"A Tale of Two Cities.\" In that,\nare philosophy, pathos, self-sacrifice, wit, humor, the grotesque\nand the tragic. I think it is the most artistic novel that I have\nread. The creations of Dickens' brain have become the citizens of\nthe world.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of American writers?\n\n_Answer_. I think Emerson was a fine writer, and he did this world\na great deal of good, but I do not class him with the first. Some\nof his poetry is wonderfully good and in it are some of the deepest\nand most beautiful lines. I think he was a poet rather than a\nphilosopher. His doctrine of compensation would be delightful if\nit had the facts to support it.\n\nOf course, Hawthorne was a great writer. His style is a little\nmonotonous, but the matter is good. \"The Marble Faun\" is by far\nhis best effort. I shall always regret that Hawthorne wrote the\nlife of Franklin Pierce.\n\nWalt Whitman will hold a high place among American writers. His\npoem on the death of Lincoln, entitled \"When Lilacs Last in the\nDooryard Bloom'd,\" is the greatest ever written on this continent.\nHe was a natural poet and wrote lines worthy of America. He was\nthe poet of democracy and individuality, and of liberty. He was\nworthy of the great Republic.\n\n_Question_. What about Henry George's books?\n\n_Answer_. Henry George wrote a wonderful book and one that arrested\nthe attention of the world--one of the greatest books of the century.\nWhile I do not believe in his destructive theories, I gladly pay\na tribute to his sincerity and his genius.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of Bellamy?\n\n_Answer_. I do not think what is called nationalism of the Bellamy\nkind is making any particular progress in this country. We are\nbelievers in individual independence, and will be, I hope, forever.\n\nBoston was at one time the literary center of the country, but the\nbest writers are not living here now. The best novelists of our\ncountry are not far from Boston. Edgar Fawcett lives in New York.\nHowells was born, I believe, in Ohio, and Julian Hawthorne lives\nin New Jersey or in Long Island. Among the poets, James Whitcomb\nRiley is a native of Indiana, and he has written some of the\ndaintiest and sweetest things in American literature. Edgar Fawcett\nis a great poet. His \"Magic Flower\" is as beautiful as anything\nTennyson has ever written. Eugene Field of Chicago, has written\nsome charming things, natural and touching.\n\nWestward the star of literature takes its course.\n\n--_The Star_, Kansas City, Mo., May 26, 1892.\n\n\nINEBRIETY.*\n\n[* Published from notes found among Colonel Ingersoll's papers,\nevidently written soon after the discovery of the \"Keeley Cure.\"]\n\n_Question_. Do you consider inebriety a disease, or the result of\ndiseased conditions?\n\n_Answer_. I believe that by a long and continuous use of stimulants,\nthe system gets in such a condition that it imperatively demands\nnot only the usual, but an increased stimulant. After a time,\nevery nerve becomes hungry, and there is in the body of the man a\ncry, coming from every nerve, for nourishment. There is a kind of\nfamine, and unless the want is supplied, insanity is the result.\nThis hunger of the nerves drowns the voice of reason--cares nothing\nfor argument--nothing for experience--nothing for the sufferings\nof others--nothing for anything, except for the food it requires.\nWords are wasted, advice is of no possible use, argument is like\nreasoning with the dead. The man has lost the control of his will\n--it has been won over to the side of the nerves. He imagines that\nif the nerves are once satisfied he can then resume the control of\nhimself. Of course, this is a mistake, and the more the nerves\nare satisfied, the more imperative is their demand. Arguments are\nnot of the slightest force. The knowledge--the conviction--that\nthe course pursued is wrong, has no effect. The man is in the\ngrasp of appetite. He is like a ship at the mercy of wind and wave\nand tide. The fact that the needle of the compass points to the\nnorth has no effect--the compass is not a force--it cannot battle\nwith the wind and tide--and so, in spite of the fact that the needle\npoints to the north, the ship is stranded on the rocks.\n\nSo the fact that the man knows that he should not drink has not\nthe slightest effect upon him. The sophistry of passion outweighs\nall that reason can urge. In other words, the man is the victim\nof disease, and until the disease is arrested, his will is not his\nown. He may wish to reform, but wish is not will. He knows all\nof the arguments in favor of temperance--he knows all about the\ndistress of wife and child--all about the loss of reputation and\ncharacter--all about the chasm toward which he is drifting--and\nyet, not being the master of himself, he goes with the tide.\n\nFor thousands of years society has sought to do away with inebriety\nby argument, by example, by law; and yet millions and millions have\nbeen carried away and countless thousands have become victims of\nalcohol. In this contest words have always been worthless, for\nthe reason that no argument can benefit a man who has lost control\nof himself.\n\n_Question_. As a lawyer, will you express an opinion as to the\nmoral and legal responsibility of a victim of alcoholism?\n\n_Answer_. Personally, I regard the moral and legal responsibility\nof all persons as being exactly the same. All persons do as they\nmust. If you wish to change the conduct of an individual you must\nchange his conditions--otherwise his actions will remain the same.\n\nWe are beginning to find that there is no effect without a cause,\nand that the conduct of individuals is not an exception to this\nlaw. Every hope, every fear, every dream, every virtue, every\ncrime, has behind it an efficient cause. Men do neither right nor\nwrong by chance. In the world of fact and in the world of conduct,\nas well as in the world of imagination, there is no room, no place,\nfor chance.\n\n_Question_. In the case of an inebriate who has committed a crime,\nwhat do you think of the common judicial opinion that such a criminal\nis as deserving of punishment as a person not inebriated?\n\n_Answer_. I see no difference. Believing as I do that all persons\nact as they must, it makes not the slightest difference whether\nthe person so acting is what we call inebriated, or sane, or insane\n--he acts as he must.\n\nThere should be no such thing as punishment. Society should protect\nitself by such means as intelligence and humanity may suggest, but\nthe idea of punishment is barbarous. No man ever was, no man ever\nwill be, made better by punishment. Society should have two objects\nin view: First, the defence of itself, and second, the reformation\nof the so-called criminal.\n\nThe world has gone on fining, imprisoning, torturing and killing\nthe victims of condition and circumstance, and condition and\ncircumstance have gone on producing the same kind of men and women\nyear after year and century after century--and all this is so\ncompletely within the control of cause and effect, within the scope\nand jurisdiction of universal law, that we can prophesy the number\nof criminals for the next year--the thieves and robbers and murderers\n--with almost absolute certainty.\n\nThere are just so many mistakes committed every year--so many crimes\n--so many heartless and foolish things done--and it does not seem\nto be--at least by the present methods--possible to increase or\ndecrease the number.\n\nWe have thousands and thousands of pulpits, and thousands of\nmoralists, and countless talkers and advisers, but all these sermons,\nand all the advice, and all the talk, seem utterly powerless in\nthe presence of cause and effect. Mothers may pray, wives may\nweep, children may starve, but the great procession moves on.\n\nFor thousands of years the world endeavored to save itself from\ndisease by ceremonies, by genuflections, by prayers, by an appeal\nto the charity and mercy of heaven--but the diseases flourished\nand the graveyards became populous, and all the ceremonies and all\nthe prayers were without the slightest effect. We must at last\nrecognize the fact, that not only life, but conduct, has a physical\nbasis. We must at last recognize the fact that virtue and vice,\ngenius and stupidity, are born of certain conditions.\n\n_Question_. In which way do you think the reformation or reconstruction\nof the inebriate is to be effected--by punishment, by moral suasion,\nby seclusion, or by medical treatment?\n\n_Answer_. In the first place, punishment simply increases the\ndisease. The victim, without being able to give the reasons, feels\nthat punishment is unjust, and thus feeling, the effect of the\npunishment cannot be good.\n\nYou might as well punish a man for having the consumption which he\ninherited from his parents, or for having a contagious disease\nwhich was given to him without his fault, as to punish him for\ndrunkenness. No one wishes to be unhappy--no one wishes to destroy\nhis own well-being. All persons prefer happiness to unhappiness,\nand success to failure, Consequently, you might as well punish a\nman for being unhappy, and thus increase his unhappiness, as to\npunish him for drunkenness. In neither case is he responsible for\nwhat he suffers.\n\nNeither can you cure this man by what is called moral suasion.\nMoral suasion, if it amounts to anything, is the force of argument\n--that is to say, the result of presenting the facts to the victim.\nNow, of all persons in the world, the victim knows the facts. He\nknows not only the effect upon those who love him, but the effect\nupon himself. There are no words that can add to his vivid\nappreciation of the situation. There is no language so eloquent\nas the sufferings of his wife and children. All these things the\ndrunkard knows, and knows perfectly, and knows as well as any other\nhuman being can know. At the same time, he feels that the tide\nand current of passion are beyond his power. He feels that he\ncannot row against the stream.\n\nThere is but one way, and that is, to treat the drunkard as the\nvictim of a disease--treat him precisely as you would a man with\na fever, as a man suffering from smallpox, or with some form of\nindigestion. It is impossible to talk a man out of consumption,\nor to reason him out of typhoid fever. You may tell him that he\nought not to die, that he ought to take into consideration the\ncondition in which he would leave his wife. You may talk to him\nabout his children--the necessity of their being fed and educated\n--but all this will have nothing to do with the progress of the\ndisease. The man does not wish to die--he wishes to live--and yet,\nthere will come a time in his disease when even that wish to live\nloses its power to will, and the man drifts away on the tide,\ncareless of life or death.\n\nSo it is with drink. Every nerve asks for a stimulant. Every drop\nof blood cries out for assistance, and in spite of all argument,\nin spite of all knowledge, in this famine of the nerves, a man\nloses the power of will. Reason abdicates the throne, and hunger\ntakes its place.\n\n_Question_. Will you state your reasons for your belief?\n\n_Answer_. In the first place, I will give a reason for my unbelief\nin what is called moral suasion and in legislation.\n\nAs I said before, for thousands and thousands of years, fathers\nand mothers and daughters and sisters and brothers have been\nendeavoring to prevent the ones they love from drink, and yet, in\nspite of everything, millions have gone on and filled at last a\ndrunkard's grave. So, societies have been formed all over the\nworld. But the consumption of ardent spirits has steadily increased.\nLaws have been passed in nearly all the nations of the world upon\nthe subject, and these laws, so far as I can see, have done but\nlittle, if any, good.\n\nAnd the same old question is upon us now: What shall be done with\nthe victims of drink? There have been probably many instances in\nwhich men have signed the pledge and have reformed. I do not say\nthat it is not possible to reform many men, in certain stages, by\nmoral suasion. Possibly, many men can be reformed in certain\nstages, by law; but the per cent. is so small that, in spite of\nthat per cent., the average increases. For these reasons, I have\nlost confidence in legislation and in moral suasion. I do not say\nwhat legislation may do by way of prevention, or what moral suasion\nmay do in the same direction, but I do say that after man have\nbecome the victims of alcohol, advice and law seem to have lost\ntheir force.\n\nI believe that science is to become the savior of mankind. In\nother words, every appetite, every excess, has a physical basis,\nand if we only knew enough of the human system--of the tides and\ncurrents of thought and will and wish--enough of the storms of\npassion--if we only knew how the brain acts and operates--if we\nonly knew the relation between blood and thought, between thought\nand act--if we only knew the conditions of conduct, then we could,\nthrough science, control the passions of the human race.\n\nWhen I first heard of the cure of inebriety through scientific\nmeans, I felt that the morning star had risen in the east--I felt\nthat at last we were finding solid ground. I did not accept--being\nof a skeptical turn of mind--all that I heard as true. I preferred\nto hope, and wait. I have waited, until I have seen men, the\nvictims of alcohol, in the very gutter of disgrace and despair,\nlifted from the mire, rescued from the famine of desire, from the\ngrasp of appetite. I have seen them suddenly become men--masters\nand monarchs of themselves.\n\n\nMIRACLES, THEOSOPHY AND SPIRITUALISM.\n\n_Question_. Do you believe that there is such a thing as a miracle,\nor that there has ever been?\n\n_Answer_. Mr. Locke was in the habit of saying: \"Define your\nterms.\" So the first question is, What is a miracle? If it is\nsomething wonderful, unusual, inexplicable, then there have been\nmany miracles. If you mean simply that which is inexplicable, then\nthe world is filled with miracles; but if you mean by a miracle,\nsomething contrary to the facts in nature, then it seems to me that\nthe miracle must be admitted to be an impossibility. It is like\ntwice two are eleven in mathematics.\n\nIf, again, we take the ground of some of the more advanced clergy,\nthat a miracle is in accordance with the facts in nature, but with\nfacts unknown to man, then we are compelled to say that a miracle\nis performed by a divine sleight-of-hand; as, for instance, that\nour senses are deceived; or, that it is perfectly simple to this\nhigher intelligence, while inexplicable to us. If we give this\nexplanation, then man has been imposed upon by a superior intelligence.\nIt is as though one acquainted with the sciences--with the action\nof electricity--should excite the wonder of savages by sending\nmessages to his partner. The savage would say, \"A miracle;\" but\nthe one who sent the message would say, \"There is no miracle; it\nis in accordance with facts in nature unknown to you.\" So that,\nafter all, the word miracle grows in the soil of ignorance.\n\nThe question arises whether a superior intelligence ought to impose\nupon the inferior. I believe there was a French saint who had his\nhead cut off by robbers, and this saint, after the robbers went\naway, got up, took his head under his arm and went on his way until\nhe found friends to set it on right. A thing like this, if it\nreally happened, was a miracle.\n\nSo it may be said that nothing is much more miraculous than the\nfact that intelligent men believe in miracles. If we read in the\nannals of China that several thousand years ago five thousand people\nwere fed on one sandwich, and that several sandwiches were left\nover after the feast, there are few intelligent men--except, it\nmay be, the editors of religious weeklies--who would credit the\nstatement. But many intelligent people, reading a like story in\nthe Hebrew, or in the Greek, or in a mistranslation from either of\nthese languages, accept the story without a doubt.\n\nSo if we should find in the records of the Indians that a celebrated\nmedicine-man of their tribe used to induce devils to leave crazy\npeople and take up their abode in wild swine, very few people would\nbelieve the story.\n\nI believe it is true that the priest of one religion has never had\nthe slightest confidence in the priest of any other religion.\n\nMy own opinion is, that nature is just as wonderful one time as\nanother; that that which occurs to-day is just as miraculous as\nanything that ever happened; that nothing is more wonderful than\nthat we live--that we think--that we convey our thoughts by speech,\nby gestures, by pictures.\n\nNothing is more wonderful than the growth of grass--the production\nof seed--the bud, the blossom and the fruit. In other words, we\nare surrounded by the inexplicable.\n\nAll that happens in conformity with what we know, we call natural;\nand that which is said to have happened, not in conformity with\nwhat we know, we say is wonderful; and that which we believe to\nhave happened contrary to what we know, we call the miraculous.\n\nI think the truth is, that nothing ever happened except in a natural\nway; that behind every effect has been an efficient cause, and that\nthis wondrous procession of causes and effects has never been, and\nnever will be, broken. In other words, there is nothing superior\nto the universe--nothing that can interfere with this procession\nof causes and effects. I believe in no miracles in the theological\nsense. My opinion is that the universe is, forever has been, and\nforever will be, perfectly natural.\n\nWhenever a religion has been founded among barbarians and ignorant\npeople, the founder has appealed to miracle as a kind of credential\n--as an evidence that he is in partnership with some higher power.\nThe credulity of savagery made this easy. But at last we have\ndiscovered that there is no necessary relation between the miraculous\nand the moral. Whenever a man's reason is developed to that point\nthat he sees the reasonableness of a thing, he needs no miracle to\nconvince him. It is only ignorance or cunning that appeals to the\nmiraculous.\n\nThere is another thing, and that is this: Truth relies upon itself\n--that is to say, upon the perceived relation between itself and\nall other truths. If you tell the facts, you need not appeal to\na miracle. It is only a mistake or a falsehood, that needs to be\npropped and buttressed by wonders and miracles.\n\n_Question_. What is your explanation of the miracles referred to\nin the Old and New Testaments?\n\n_Answer_. In the first place, a miracle cannot be explained. If\nit is a real miracle, there is no explanation. If it can be\nexplained, then the miracle disappears, and the thing was done in\naccordance with the facts and forces of nature.\n\nIn a time when not one it may be in thousands could read or write,\nwhen language was rude, and when the signs by which thoughts were\nconveyed were few and inadequate, it was very easy to make mistakes,\nand nothing is more natural than for a mistake to grow into a\nmiracle. In an ignorant age, history for the most part depended\nupon memory. It was handed down from the old in their dotage, to\nthe young without judgment. The old always thought that the early\ndays were wonderful--that the world was wearing out because they\nwere. The past looked at through the haze of memory, became\nexaggerated, gigantic. Their fathers were stronger than they, and\ntheir grandfathers far superior to their fathers, and so on until\nthey reached men who had the habit of living about a thousand years.\n\nIn my judgment, everything in the Old Testament contrary to the\nexperience of the civilized world, is false. I do not say that\nthose who told the stories knew that they were false, or that those\nwho wrote them suspected that they were not true. Thousands and\nthousands of lies are told by honest stupidity and believed by\ninnocent credulity. Then again, cunning takes advantage of ignorance,\nand so far as I know, though all the history of the world a good\nmany people have endeavored to make a living without work.\n\nI am perfectly convinced of the integrity of nature--that the\nelements are eternally the same--that the chemical affinities and\nhatreds know no shadow of turning--that just so many atoms of one\nkind combine with so many atoms of another, and that the relative\nnumbers have never changed and never will change. I am satisfied\nthat the attraction of gravitation is a permanent institution; that\nthe laws of motion have been the same that they forever will be.\nThere is no chance, there is no caprice. Behind every effect is\na cause, and every effect must in its turn become a cause, and only\nthat is produced which a cause of necessity produces.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of Madame Blavatsky and her school\nof Theosophists? Do you believe Madame Blavatsky does or has done\nthe wonderful things related of her? Have you seen or known of\nany Theosophical or esoteric marvels?\n\n_Answer_. I think wonders are about the same in this country that\nthey are in India, and nothing appears more likely to me simply\nbecause it is surrounded with the mist of antiquity. In my judgment,\nMadame Blavatsky has never done any wonderful things--that is to\nsay, anything not in perfect accordance with the facts of nature.\n\nI know nothing of esoteric marvels. In one sense, everything that\nexists is a marvel, and the probability is that if we knew the\nhistory of one grain of sand we would know the history of the\nuniverse. I regard the universe as a unit. Everything that happens\nis only a different aspect of that unit. There is no room for the\nmarvelous--there is no space in which it can operate--there is no\nfulcrum for its lever. The universe is already occupied with the\nnatural. The ground is all taken.\n\nIt may be that all these people are perfectly honest, and imagine\nthat they have had wonderful experiences. I know but little of\nthe Theosophists--but little of the Spiritualists. It has always\nseemed to me that the messages received by Spiritualists are\nremarkably unimportant--that they tell us but little about the\nother world, and just as little about this--that if all the messages\nsupposed to have come from angelic lips, or spiritual lips, were\ndestroyed, certainly the literature of the world would lose but\nlittle. Some of these people are exceedingly intelligent, and\nwhenever they say any good thing, I imagine that it was produced\nin their brain, and that it came from no other world. I have no\nright to pass upon their honesty. Most of them may be sincere.\nIt may be that all the founders of religions have really supposed\nthemselves to be inspired--believed that they held conversations\nwith angels and Gods. It seems to be easy for some people to get\nin such a frame of mind that their thoughts become realities, their\ndreams substances, and their very hopes palpable.\n\nPersonally, I have no sort of confidence in these messages from\nthe other world. There may be mesmeric forces--there may be an\nodic force. It may be that some people can tell of what another\nis thinking. I have seen no such people--at least I am not acquainted\nwith them--and my own opinion is that no such persons exist.\n\n_Question_. Do you believe the spirits of the dead come back to\nearth?\n\n_Answer_. I do not. I do not say that the spirits do not come\nback. I simply say that I know nothing on the subject. I do not\nbelieve in such spirits, simply for the reason that I have no\nevidence upon which to base such a belief. I do not say there are\nno such spirits, for the reason that my knowledge is limited, and\nI know of no way of demonstrating the non-existence of spirits.\n\nIt may be that man lives forever, and it may be that what we call\nlife ends with what we call death. I have had no experience beyond\nthe grave, and very little back of birth. Consequently, I cannot\nsay that I have a belief on this subject. I can simply say that\nI have no knowledge on this subject, and know of no fact in nature\nthat I would use as the corner-stone of a belief.\n\n_Question_. Do you believe in the resurrection of the body?\n\n_Answer_. My answer to that is about the same as to the other\nquestion. I do not believe in the resurrection of the body. It\nseems to me an exceedingly absurd belief--and yet I do not know.\nI am told, and I suppose I believe, that the atoms that are in me\nhave been in many other people, and in many other forms of life,\nand I suppose at death the atoms forming my body go back to the\nearth and are used in countless forms. These facts, or what I\nsuppose to be facts, render a belief in the resurrection of the\nbody impossible to me.\n\nWe get atoms to support our body from what we eat. Now, if a\ncannibal should eat a missionary, and certain atoms belonging to\nthe missionary should be used by the cannibal in his body, and the\ncannibal should then die while the atoms of the missionary formed\npart of his flesh, to whom would these atoms belong in the morning\nof the resurrection?\n\nThen again, science teaches us that there is a kind of balance\nbetween animal and vegetable life, and that probably all men and\nall animals have been trees, and all trees have been animals; so\nthat the probability is that the atoms that are now in us have\nbeen, as I said in the first place, in millions of other people.\nNow, if this be so, there cannot be atoms enough in the morning of\nthe resurrection, because, if the atoms are given to the first men,\nthat belonged to the first men when they died, there will certainly\nbe no atoms for the last men.\n\nConsequently, I am compelled to say that I do not believe in the\nresurrection of the body.*\n\n[* From notes found among Colonel Ingersoll's papers.]\n\n\nTOLSTOY AND LITERATURE.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of Count Leo Tolstoy?\n\n_Answer_. I have read Tolstoy. He is a curious mixture of simplicity\nand philosophy. He seems to have been carried away by his conception\nof religion. He is a non-resistant to such a degree that he asserts\nthat he would not, if attacked, use violence to preserve his own\nlife or the life of a child. Upon this question he is undoubtedly\ninsane.\n\nSo he is trying to live the life of a peasant and doing without\nthe comforts of life! This is not progress. Civilization should\nnot endeavor to bring about equality by making the rich poor or\nthe comfortable miserable. This will not add to the pleasures of\nthe rich, neither will it feed the hungry, not clothe the naked.\n\nThe civilized wealthy should endeavor to help the needy, and help\nthem in a sensible way, not through charity, but through industry;\nthrough giving them opportunities to take care of themselves. I\ndo not believe in the equality that is to be reached by pulling\nthe successful down, but I do believe in civilization that tends\nto raise the fallen and assists those in need.\n\nShould we all follow Tolstoy's example and live according to his\nphilosophy the world would go back to barbarism; art would be lost;\nthat which elevates and refines would be destroyed; the voice of\nmusic would become silent, and man would be satisfied with a rag,\na hut, a crust. We do not want the equality of savages.\n\nNo, in civilization there must be differences, because there is a\nconstant movement forward. The human race cannot advance in line.\nThere will be pioneers, there will be the great army, and there\nwill be countless stragglers. It is not necessary for the whole\narmy to go back to the stragglers, it is better that the army should\nmarch forward toward the pioneers.\n\nIt may be that the sale of Tolstoy's works is on the increase in\nAmerica, but certainly the principles of Tolstoy are gaining no\nfoothold here. We are not a nation of non-resistants. We believe\nin defending our homes. Nothing can exceed the insanity of non-\nresistance. This doctrine leaves virtue naked and clothes vice in\narmor; it gives every weapon to the wrong and takes every shield\nfrom the right. I believe that goodness has the right of self-\ndefence. As a matter of fact, vice should be left naked and virtue\nshould have all the weapons. The good should not be a flock of\nsheep at the mercy of every wolf. So, I do not accept Tolstoy's\ntheory of equality as a sensible solution of the labor problem.\n\nThe hope of this world is that men will become civilized to that\ndegree that they cannot be happy while they know that thousands of\ntheir fellow-men are miserable.\n\nThe time will come when the man who dwells in a palace will not be\nhappy if Want sits upon the steps at his door. No matter how well\nhe is clothed himself he will not enjoy his robes if he sees others\nin rags, and the time will come when the intellect of this world\nwill be directed by the heart of this world, and when men of genius\nand power will do what they can for the benefit of their fellow-\nmen. All this is to come through civilization, through experience.\n\nMen, after a time, will find the worthlessness of great wealth;\nthey will find it is not splendid to excite envy in others. So,\ntoo, they will find that the happiness of the human race is so\ninterdependent and so interwoven, that finally the interest of\nhumanity will be the interest of the individual.\n\nI know that at present the lives of many millions are practically\nwithout value, but in my judgment, the world is growing a little\nbetter every day. On the average, men have more comforts, better\nclothes, better food, more books and more of the luxuries of life\nthan ever before.\n\n_Question_. It is said that properly to appreciate Rousseau,\nVoltaire, Hugo and other French classics, a thorough knowledge of\nthe French language is necessary. What is your opinion?\n\n_Answer_. No; to say that a knowledge of French is necessary in\norder to appreciate Voltaire or Hugo is nonsensical. For a student\nanxious to study the works of these masters, to set to work to\nlearn the language of the writers would be like my building a flight\nof stairs to go down to supper. The stairs are already there.\nSome other person built them for me and others who choose to use\nthem.\n\nMen have spent their lives in the study of the French and English,\nand have given us Voltaire, Hugo and all other works of French\nclassics, perfect in sentiment and construction as the originals\nare. Macaulay was a great linguist, but he wrote no better than\nShakespeare, and Burns wrote perfect English, though virtually\nuneducated. Good writing is a matter of genius and heart; reading\nis application and judgment.\n\nI am of the opinion that Wilbur's English translation of \"Les\nMiserables\" is better than Hugo's original, as a literary\nmasterpiece.\n\nWhat a grand novel it is! What characters, Jean Valjean and Javert!\n\n_Question_. Which in your opinion is the greatest English novel?\n\n_Answer_. I think the greatest novel ever written in English is\n\"A Tale of Two Cities,\" by Dickens. It is full of philosophy; its\nincidents are dramatically grouped. Sidney Carton, the hero, is\na marvelous creation and a marvelous character. Lucie Manette is\nas delicate as the perfume of wild violets, and cell 105, North\nTower, and scenes enacted there, almost touch the region occupied\nby \"Lear.\" There, too, Mme. Defarge is the impersonation of the\nFrench Revolution, and the nobleman of the chateau with his fine\nfeatures changed to stone, and the messenger at Tellson's Bank\ngnawing the rust from his nails; all there are the creations of\ngenius, and these children of fiction will live as long as Imagination\nspreads her many-colored wings in the mind of man.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of Pope?\n\n_Answer_. Pope! Alexander Pope, the word-carpenter, a mechanical\npoet, or stay--rather a \"digital poet;\" that fits him best--one of\nthose fellows who counts his fingers to see that his verse is in\nperfect rhythm. His \"Essay on Man\" strikes me as being particularly\ndefective. For instance:\n\n \"All discord, harmony not understood,\n All partial evil, universal good,\"\n\nfrom the first epistle of his \"Essay on Man.\" Anything that is\nevil cannot by any means be good, and anything partial cannot be\nuniversal.\n\nWe see in libraries ponderous tomes labeled \"Burke's Speeches.\"\nNo person ever seems to read them, but he is now regarded as being\nin his day a great speaker, because now no one has pluck enough to\nread his speeches. Why, for thirty years Burke was known in\nParliament as the \"Dinner Bell\"--whenever he rose to speak, everybody\nwent to dinner.\n\n--_The Evening Express_, Buffalo, New York, October 6, 1892.\n\n\nWOMAN IN POLITICS.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the influence of women in\npolitics?\n\n_Answer_. I think the influence of women is always good in politics,\nas in everything else. I think it the duty of every woman to\nascertain what she can in regard to her country, including its\nhistory, laws and customs. Woman above all others is a teacher.\nShe, above all others, determines the character of children; that\nis to say, of men and women.\n\nThere is not the slightest danger of women becoming too intellectual\nor knowing too much. Neither is there any danger of men knowing\ntoo much. At least, I know of no men who are in immediate peril\nfrom that source. I am a firm believer in the equal rights of\nhuman beings, and no matter what I think as to what woman should\nor should not do, she has the same right to decide for herself that\nI have to decide for myself. If women wish to vote, if they wish\nto take part in political matters, if they wish to run for office,\nI shall do nothing to interfere with their rights. I most cheerfully\nadmit that my political rights are only equal to theirs.\n\nThere was a time when physical force or brute strength gave pre-\neminence. The savage chief occupied his position by virtue of his\nmuscle, of his courage, on account of the facility with which he\nwielded a club. As long as nations depend simply upon brute force,\nthe man, in time of war, is, of necessity, of more importance to\nthe nation than woman, and as the dispute is to be settled by\nstrength, by force, those who have the strength and force naturally\nsettle it. As the world becomes civilized, intelligence slowly\ntakes the place of force, conscience restrains muscle, reason enters\nthe arena, and the gladiator retires.\n\nA little while ago the literature of the world was produced by men,\nand men were not only the writers, but the readers. At that time\nthe novels were coarse and vulgar. Now the readers of fiction are\nwomen, and they demand that which they can read, and the result is\nthat women have become great writers. The women have changed our\nliterature, and the change has been good.\n\nIn every field where woman has become a competitor of man she has\neither become, or given evidence that she is to become, his equal.\nMy own opinion is that woman is naturally the equal of man and that\nin time, that is to say, when she has had the opportunity and the\ntraining, she will produce in the world of art as great pictures,\nas great statues, and in the world of literature as great books,\ndramas and poems as man has produced or will produce.\n\nThere is nothing very hard to understand in the politics of a\ncountry. The general principles are for the most part simple. It\nis only in the application that the complexity arises, and woman,\nI think, by nature, is as well fitted to understand these things\nas man. In short, I have no prejudice on this subject. At first,\nwomen will be more conservative than men; and this is natural.\nWomen have, through many generations, acquired the habit of\nsubmission, of acquiescence. They have practiced what may be called\nthe slave virtues--obedience, humility--so that some time will be\nrequired for them to become accustomed to the new order of things,\nto the exercise of greater freedom, acting in accordance with\nperceived obligation, independently of authority.\n\nSo I say equal rights, equal education, equal advantages. I hope\nthat woman will not continue to be the serf of superstition; that\nshe will not be the support of the church and priest; that she will\nnot stand for the conservation of superstition, but that in the\neast of her mind the sun of progress will rise.\n\n_Question_. In your lecture on Voltaire you made a remark about\nthe government of ministers, and you stated that if the ministers\nof the city of New York had to power to make the laws most people\nwould prefer to live in a well regulated penitentiary. What do\nyou mean by this?\n\n_Answer_. Well, as a rule, ministers are quite severe. They have\nlittle patience with human failures. They are taught, and they\nbelieve and they teach, that man is absolutely master of his own\nfate. Besides, they are believers in the inspiration of the\nScriptures, and the laws of the Old Testament are exceedingly\nsevere. Nearly every offence was punished by death. Every offence\nwas regarded as treason against Jehovah.\n\nIn the Pentateuch there is no pity. If a man committed some offence\njustice was not satisfied with his punishment, but proceeded to\ndestroy his wife and children. Jehovah seemed to think that crime\nwas in the blood; that it was not sufficient to kill the criminal,\nbut to prevent future crimes you should kill his wife and babes.\nThe reading of the Old Testament is calculated to harden the heart,\nto drive the angel of pity from the breast, and to make man a\nreligious savage. The clergy, as a rule, do not take a broad and\nliberal view of things. They judge every offence by what they\nconsider would be the result if everybody committed the same offence.\nThey do not understand that even vice creates obstructions for\nitself, and that there is something in the nature of crime the\ntendency of which is to defeat crime, and I might add in this place\nthat the same seems to be true of excessive virtue. As a rule,\nthe clergy clamor with great zeal for the execution of cruel laws.\n\nLet me give an instance in point: In the time of George III., in\nEngland, there were two hundred and twenty-three offences punishable\nwith death. From time to time this cruel code was changed by Act\nof Parliament, yet no bishop sitting in the House of Lords ever\nvoted in favor of any one of these measures. The bishops always\nvoted for death, for blood, against mercy and against the repeal\nof capital punishment. During all these years there were some\ntwenty thousand or more of the established clergy, and yet, according\nto John Bright, no voice was ever raised in any English pulpit\nagainst the infamous criminal code.\n\nAnother thing: The orthodox clergy teach that man is totally\ndepraved; that his inclination is evil; that his tendency is toward\nthe Devil. Starting from this as a foundation, of course every\nclergyman believes every bad thing said of everybody else. So,\nwhen some man is charged with a crime, the clergyman taking into\nconsideration the fact that the man is totally depraved, takes it\nfor granted that he must be guilty. I am not saying this for the\npurpose of exciting prejudice against the clergy. I am simply\nshowing what is the natural result of a certain creed, of a belief\nin universal depravity, or a belief in the power and influence of\na personal Devil. If the clergy could have their own way they\nwould endeavor to reform the world by law. They would re-enact\nthe old statutes of the Puritans. Joy would be a crime. Love\nwould be an offence. Every man with a smile on his face would be\nsuspected, and a dimple in the cheek would be a demonstration of\ndepravity.\n\nIn the trial of a cause it is natural for a clergyman to start with\nthe proposition, \"The defendant is guilty;\" and then he says to\nhimself, \"Let him prove himself innocent.\" The man who has not\nbeen poisoned with the creed starts out with the proposition, \"The\ndefendant is innocent; let the State prove that he is guilty.\"\nConsequently, I say that if I were defending a man whom I knew to\nbe innocent, I would not have a clergyman on the jury if I could\nhelp it.\n\n--_New York Advertiser_, December 24, 1893.\n\n\nSPIRITUALISM.\n\n_Question_. Have you investigated Spiritualism, and what has been\nyour experience?\n\n_Answer_. A few years ago I paid some attention to what is called\nSpiritualism, and was present when quite mysterious things were\nsupposed to have happened. The most notable seance that I attended\nwas given by Slade, at which slate-writing was done. Two slates\nwere fastened together, with a pencil between them, and on opening\nthe slates certain writing was found. When the writing was done\nit was impossible to tell. So, I have been present when it was\nclaimed that certain dead people had again clothed themselves in\nflesh and were again talking in the old way. In one instance, I\nthink, George Washington claimed to be present. On the same evening\nShakespeare put in an appearance. It was hard to recognize\nShakespeare from what the spirit said, still I was assured by the\nmedium that there was no mistake as to the identity.\n\n_Question_. Can you offer any explanation of the extraordinary\nphenomena such as Henry J. Newton has had produced at his own house\nunder his own supervision?\n\n_Answer_. In the first place, I don't believe that anything such\nas you describe has ever happened. I do not believe that a medium\never passed into and out of a triple-locked iron cage. Neither do\nI believe that any spirits were able to throw shoes and wraps out\nof the cage; neither do I believe that any apparitions ever rose\nfrom the floor, or that anything you relate has ever happened.\nThe best explanation I can give of these wonderful occurrences is\nthe following: A little boy and girl were standing in a doorway\nholding hands. A gentleman passing, stopped for a moment and said\nto the little girl: \"What relation is the little boy to you?\" and\nshe replied, \"We had the same father and we had the same mother,\nbut I am not his sister and he is not my brother.\" This at first\nseemed to be quite a puzzle, but it was exceedingly plain when the\nanswer was known: The little girl lied.\n\n_Question_. Have you had any experience with spirit photography,\nspirit physicians, or spirit lawyers?\n\n_Answer_. I was shown at one time several pictures said to be the\nphotographs of living persons surrounded by the photographs of\nspirits. I examined them very closely, and I found evidence in\nthe photographs themselves that they were spurious. I took it for\ngranted that light is the same everywhere, and that it obeys the\nangle of incidence in all worlds and at all times. In looking at\nthe spirit photographs I found, for instance, that in the photograph\nof the living person the shadows fell to the right, and that in\nthe photographs of the ghosts, or spirits, supposed to have been\nsurrounding the living person at the time the picture was taken,\nthe shadows did not fall in the same direction, sometimes in the\nopposite direction, never at the same angle even when the general\ndirection was the same. This demonstrated that the photographs of\nthe spirits and of the living persons were not taken at the same\ntime. So much for photographs.\n\nI have had no experience with spirit physicians. I was once told\nby a lawyer who came to employ me in a will case, that a certain\nperson had made a will giving a large amount of money for the\npurpose of spreading the gospel of Spiritualism, but that the will\nhad been lost and than an effort was then being made to find it,\nand they wished me to take certain action pending the search, and\nwanted my assistance. I said to him: \"If Spiritualism be true,\nwhy not ask the man who made the will what it was and also what\nhas become of it. If you can find that out from the departed, I\nwill gladly take a retainer in the case; otherwise, I must decline.\"\nI have had no other experience with the lawyers.\n\n_Question_. If you were to witness phenomena that seemed inexplicable\nby natural laws, would you be inclined to favor Spiritualism?\n\n_Answer_. I would not. If I should witness phenomena that I could\nnot explain, I would leave the phenomena unexplained. I would not\nexplain them because I did not understand them, and say they were\nor are produced by spirits. That is no explanation, and, after\nadmitting that we do not know and that we cannot explain, why should\nwe proceed to explain? I have seen Mr. Kellar do things for which\nI cannot account. Why should I say that he has the assistance of\nspirits? All I have a right to say is that I know nothing about\nhow he does them. So I am compelled to say with regard to many\nspiritualistic feats, that I am ignorant of the ways and means.\nAt the same time, I do not believe that there is anything supernatural\nin the universe.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of Spiritualism and Spiritualists?\n\n_Answer_. I think the Spiritualism of the present day is certainly\nin advance of the Spiritualism of several centuries ago. Persons\nwho now deny Spiritualism and hold it in utter contempt insist that\nsome eighteen or nineteen centuries ago it had possession of the\nworld; that miracles were of daily occurrence; that demons, devils,\nfiends, took possession of human beings, lived in their bodies,\ndominated their minds. They believe, too, that devils took possession\nof the bodies of animals. They also insist that a wish could\nmultiply fish. And, curiously enough, the Spiritualists of our\ntime have but little confidence in the phenomena of eighteen hundred\nyears ago; and, curiously enough, those who believe in the Spiritualism\nof eighteen hundred years ago deny the Spiritualism of to-day. I\nthink the Spiritualists of to-day have far more evidence of their\nphenomena than those who believe in the wonderful things of eighteen\ncenturies ago. The Spiritualists of to-day have living witnesses,\nwhich is something. I know a great many Spiritualists that are\nexceedingly good people, and are doing what they can to make the\nworld better. But I think they are mistaken.\n\n_Question_. Do you believe in spirit entities, whether manifestible\nor not?\n\n_Answer_. I believe there is such a thing as matter. I believe\nthere is a something called force. The difference between force\nand matter I do not know. So there is something called consciousness.\nWhether we call consciousness an entity or not makes no difference\nas to what it really is. There is something that hears, sees and\nfeels, a something that takes cognizance of what happens in what\nwe call the outward world. No matter whether we call this something\nmatter or spirit, it is something that we do not know, to say the\nleast of it, all about. We cannot understand what matter is. It\ndefies us, and defies definitions. So, with what we call spirit,\nwe are in utter ignorance of what it is. We have some little\nconception of what we mean by it, and of what others mean, but as\nto what it really is no one knows. It makes no difference whether\nwe call ourselves Materialists or Spiritualists, we believe in all\nthere is, no matter what you call it. If we call it all matter,\nthen we believe that matter can think and hope and dream. If we\ncall it all spirit, then we believe that spirit has force, that it\noffers a resistance; in other words, that it is, in one of its\naspects, what we call matter. I cannot believe that everything\ncan be accounted for by motion or by what we call force, because\nthere is something that recognizes force. There is something that\ncompares, that thinks, that remembers; there is something that\nsuffers and enjoys; there is something that each one calls himself\nor herself, that is inexplicable to himself or herself, and it\nmakes no difference whether we call this something mind or soul,\neffect or entity, it still eludes us, and all the words we have\ncoined for the purpose of expressing our knowledge of this something,\nafter all, express only our desire to know, and our efforts to\nascertain. It may be that if we would ask some minister, some one\nwho has studied theology, he would give us a perfect definition.\nThe scientists know nothing about it, and I know of no one who\ndoes, unless it be a theologian.\n\n--_The Globe-Democrat_, St. Louis, Mo., 1893.\n\n\n[Illustration]\n_Chatham Street Theater, New York City, N. Y., where Robert G.\nIngersoll was baptized in 1836 by his father, the Rev. John Ingersoll,\nwho temporarily preached at the theatre, his church having been\ndestroyed by fire_.\n\nPLAYS AND PLAYERS.\n\n_Question_. What place does the theatre hold among the arts?\n\n_Answer_. Nearly all the arts unite in the theatre, and it is the\nresult of the best, the highest, the most artistic, that man can do.\n\nIn the first place, there must be the dramatic poet. Dramatic\npoetry is the subtlest, profoundest, the most intellectual, the\nmost passionate and artistic of all. Then the stage must be\nprepared, and there is work for the architect, the painter and\nsculptor. Then the actors appear, and they must be gifted with\nimagination, with a high order of intelligence; they must have\nsympathies quick and deep, natures capable of the greatest emotion,\ndominated by passion. They must have impressive presence, and all\nthat is manly should meet and unite in the actor; all that is\nwomanly, tender, intense and admirable should be lavishly bestowed\non the actress. In addition to all this, actors should have the\nart of being natural.\n\nLet me explain what I mean by being natural. When I say that an\nactor is natural, I mean that he appears to act in accordance with\nhis ideal, in accordance with his nature, and that he is not an\nimitator or a copyist--that he is not made up of shreds and patches\ntaken from others, but that all he does flows from interior fountains\nand is consistent with his own nature, all having in a marked degree\nthe highest characteristics of the man. That is what I mean by\nbeing natural.\n\nThe great actor must be acquainted with the heart, must know the\nmotives, ends, objects and desires that control the thoughts and\nacts of men. He must be familiar with many people, including the\nlowest and the highest, so that he may give to others, clothed with\nflesh and blood, the characters born of the poet's brain. The\ngreat actor must know the relations that exist between passion and\nvoice, gesture and emphasis, expression and pose. He must speak\nnot only with his voice, but with his body. The great actor must\nbe master of many arts.\n\nThen comes the musician. The theatre has always been the home of\nmusic, and this music must be appropriate; must, or should, express\nor supplement what happens on the stage; should furnish rest and\nbalm for minds overwrought with tragic deeds. To produce a great\nplay, and put it worthily upon the stage, involves most arts, many\nsciences and nearly all that is artistic, poetic and dramatic in\nthe mind of man.\n\n_Question_. Should the drama teach lessons and discuss social\nproblems, or should it give simply intellectual pleasure and furnish\namusement?\n\n_Answer_. Every great play teaches many lessons and touches nearly\nall social problems. But the great play does this by indirection.\nEvery beautiful thought is a teacher; every noble line speaks to\nthe brain and heart. Beauty, proportion, melody suggest moral\nbeauty, proportion in conduct and melody in life. In a great play\nthe relations of the various characters, their objects, the means\nadopted for their accomplishment, must suggest, and in a certain\nsense solve or throw light on many social problems, so that the\ndrama teaches lessons, discusses social problems and gives intellectual\npleasure.\n\nThe stage should not be dogmatic; neither should its object be\ndirectly to enforce a moral. The great thing for the drama to do,\nand the great thing it has done, and is doing, is to cultivate the\nimagination. This is of the utmost importance. The civilization\nof man depends upon the development, not only of the intellect,\nbut of the imagination. Most crimes of violence are committed by\npeople who are destitute of imagination. People without imagination\nmake most of the cruel and infamous creeds. They were the persecutors\nand destroyers of their fellow-men. By cultivating the imagination,\nthe stage becomes one of the greatest teachers. It produces the\nclimate in which the better feelings grow; it is the home of the\nideal. All beautiful things tend to the civilization of man. The\ngreat statues plead for proportion in life, the great symphonies\nsuggest the melody of conduct, and the great plays cultivate the\nheart and brain.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the French drama as compared with\nthe English, morally and artistically considered?\n\n_Answer_. The modern French drama, so far as I am acquainted with\nit, is a disease. It deals with the abnormal. It is fashioned\nafter Balzac. It exhibits moral tumors, mental cancers and all\nkinds of abnormal fungi,--excrescences. Everything is stood on\nits head; virtue lives in the brothel; the good are the really bad\nand the worst are, after all, the best. It portrays the exceptional,\nand mistakes the scum-covered bayou for the great river. The French\ndramatists seem to think that the ceremony of marriage sows the\nseed of vice. They are always conveying the idea that the virtuous\nare uninteresting, rather stupid, without sense and spirit enough\nto take advantage of their privilege. Between the greatest French\nplays and the greatest English plays of course there is no comparison.\nIf a Frenchman had written the plays of Shakespeare, Desdemona\nwould have been guilty, Isabella would have ransomed her brother\nat the Duke's price, Juliet would have married the County Paris,\nrun away from him, and joined Romeo in Mantua, and Miranda would\nhave listened coquettishly to the words of Caliban. The French\nare exceedingly artistic. They understand stage effects, love the\nclimax, delight in surprises, especially in the improbable; but\ntheir dramatists lack sympathy and breadth of treatment. They are\nprovincial. With them France is the world. They know little of\nother countries. Their plays do not touch the universal.\n\n_Question_. What are your feelings in reference to idealism on\nthe stage?\n\n_Answer_. The stage ought to be the home of the ideal; in a word,\nthe imagination should have full sway. The great dramatist is a\ncreator; he is the sovereign, and governs his own world. The\nrealist is only a copyist. He does not need genius. All he wants\nis industry and the trick of imitation. On the stage, the real\nshould be idealized, the ordinary should be transfigured; that is,\nthe deeper meaning of things should be given. As we make music of\ncommon air, and statues of stone, so the great dramatist should\nmake life burst into blossom on the stage. A lot of words, facts,\nodds and ends divided into acts and scenes do not make a play.\nThese things are like old pieces of broken iron that need the heat\nof the furnace so that they may be moulded into shape. Genius is\nthat furnace, and in its heat and glow and flame these pieces,\nthese fragments, become molten and are cast into noble and heroic\nforms. Realism degrades and impoverishes the stage.\n\n_Question_. What attributes should an actor have to be really\ngreat?\n\n_Answer_. Intelligence, imagination, presence; a mobile and\nimpressive face; a body that lends itself to every mood in appropriate\npose, one that is oak or willow, at will; self-possession; absolute\nease; a voice capable of giving every shade of meaning and feeling,\nan intuitive knowledge or perception of proportion, and above all,\nthe actor should be so sincere that he loses himself in the character\nhe portrays. Such an actor will grow intellectually and morally.\nThe great actor should strive to satisfy himself--to reach his own\nideal.\n\n_Question_. Do you enjoy Shakespeare more in the library than\nShakespeare interpreted by actors now on the boards?\n\n_Answer_. I enjoy Shakespeare everywhere. I think it would give\nme pleasure to hear those wonderful lines spoken even by phonographs.\nBut Shakespeare is greatest and best when grandly put upon the\nstage. There you know the connection, the relation, the circumstances,\nand these bring out the appropriateness and the perfect meaning of\nthe text. Nobody in this country now thinks of Hamlet without\nthinking of Booth. For this generation at least, Booth is Hamlet.\nIt is impossible for me to read the words of Sir Toby without seeing\nthe face of W. F. Owen. Brutus is Davenport, Cassius is Lawrence\nBarrett, and Lear will be associated always in my mind with Edwin\nForrest. Lady Macbeth is to me Adelaide Ristori, the greatest\nactress I ever saw. If I understood music perfectly, I would much\nrather hear Seidl's orchestra play \"Tristan,\" or hear Remenyi's\nmatchless rendition of Schubert's \"Ave Maria,\" than to read the\nnotes.\n\nMost people love the theatre. Everything about it from stage to\ngallery attracts and fascinates. The mysterious realm, behind the\nscenes, from which emerge kings and clowns, villains and fools,\nheroes and lovers, and in which they disappear, is still a fairyland.\nAs long as man is man he will enjoy the love and laughter, the\ntears and rapture of the mimic world.\n\n_Question_. Is it because we lack men of genius or because our\nlife is too material that no truly great American plays have been\nwritten?\n\n_Answer_. No great play has been written since Shakespeare; that\nis, no play has been written equal to his. But there is the same\nreason for that in all other countries, including England, that\nthere is in this country, and that reason is that Shakespeare has\nhad no equal.\n\nAmerica has not failed because life in the Republic is too material.\nGermany and France, and, in fact, all other nations, have failed\nin the same way. In the sense in which I am speaking, Germany has\nproduced no great play.\n\nIn the dramatic world Shakespeare stands alone. Compared with him,\neven the classic is childish.\n\nThere is plenty of material for plays. The Republic has lived a\ngreat play--a great poem--a most marvelous drama. Here, on our\nsoil, have happened some of the greatest events in the history of\nthe world.\n\nAll human passions have been and are in full play here, and here\nas elsewhere, can be found the tragic, the comic, the beautiful,\nthe poetic, the tears, the smiles, the lamentations and the laughter\nthat are the necessary warp and woof with which to weave the living\ntapestries that we call plays.\n\nWe are beginning. We have found that American plays must be American\nin spirit. We are tired of imitations and adaptations. We want\nplays worthy of the great Republic. Some good work has recently\nbeen done, giving great hope for the future. Of course the realistic\ncomes first; afterward the ideal. But here in America, as in all\nother lands, love is the eternal passion that will forever hold\nthe stage. Around that everything else will move. It is the sun.\nAll other passions are secondary. Their orbits are determined by\nthe central force from which they receive their light and meaning.\n\nLove, however, must be kept pure.\n\nThe great dramatist is, of necessity, a believer in virtue, in\nhonesty, in courage and in the nobility of human nature. He must\nknow that there are men and women that even a God could not corrupt;\nsuch knowledge, such feeling, is the foundation, and the only\nfoundation, that can support the splendid structure, the many\npillared stories and the swelling dome of the great drama.\n\n--_The New York Dramatic Mirror_, December 26, 1891.\n\n\nWOMAN.\n\nIt takes a hundred men to make an encampment, but one woman can\nmake a home. I not only admire woman as the most beautiful object\never created, but I reverence her as the redeeming glory of humanity,\nthe sanctuary of all the virtues, the pledge of all perfect qualities\nof heart and head. It is not just or right to lay the sins of men\nat the feet of women. It is because women are so much better than\nmen that their faults are considered greater.\n\nThe one thing in this world that is constant, the one peak that\nrises above all clouds, the one window in which the light forever\nburns, the one star that darkness cannot quench, is woman's love.\nIt rises to the greatest heights, it sinks to the lowest depths,\nit forgives the most cruel injuries. It is perennial of life, and\ngrows in every climate. Neither coldness nor neglect, harshness\nnor cruelty, can extinguish it. A woman's love is the perfume of\nthe heart.\n\nThis is the real love that subdues the earth; the love that has\nwrought all the miracles of art, that gives us music all the way\nfrom the cradle song to the grand closing symphony that bears the\nsoul away on wings of fire. A love that is greater than power,\nsweeter than life and stronger than death.\n\n\nSTRIKES, EXPANSION AND OTHER SUBJECTS.\n\n_Question_. What have you to say in regard to the decision of\nJudge Billings in New Orleans, that strikes which interfere with\ninterstate commerce, are illegal?\n\n_Answer_. As a rule, men have a right to quit work at any time\nunless there is some provision to the contrary in their contracts.\nThey have not the right to prevent other men from taking their\nplaces. Of course I do not mean by this that strikers may not use\npersuasion and argument to prevent other men from filling their\nplaces. All blacklisting and refusing to work with other men is\nillegal and punishable. Of course men may conspire to quit work,\nbut how is it to be proved? One man can quit, or five hundred men\ncan quit together, and nothing can prevent them. The decisions of\nJudge Ricks and Judge Billings are an acknowledgment, at least, of\nthe principle of public control or regulation of railroads and of\ncommerce generally. The railroads, which run for private profit,\nare public carriers, and the public has a vested interest in them\nas such. The same principle applies to the commerce of the country\nand can be dealt with by the courts in the same way. It is unlikely,\nhowever, that Judge Billings' decision will have any lasting effect\nupon organized labor. Law cannot be enforced against such vast\nnumbers of people, especially when they have the general sympathy.\nNearly all strikes have been illegal, but the numbers involved have\nmade the courts powerless.\n\n_Question_. Are you in favor of the annexation of Canada?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, if Canada is. We do not want that country unless\nthat country wants us. I do not believe it to the interests of\nCanada to remain a province. Canada should either be an independent\nnation, or a part of a nation. Now Canada is only a province--with\nno career--with nothing to stimulate either patriotism or great\neffort. Yes, I hope that Canada will be annexed.\n\nBy all means annex the Sandwich Islands, too. I believe in\nterritorial expansion. A prosperous farmer wants the land next him,\nand a prosperous nation ought to grow. I believe that we ought to\nhold the key to the Pacific and its commerce. We want to be prepared\nat all points to defend our interests from the greed and power of\nEngland.\n\nWe are going to have a navy, and we want that navy to be of use in\nprotecting our interests the world over. And we want interests to\nprotect.\n\nIt is a splendid feeling--this feeling of growth. By the annexation\nof these islands we open new avenues to American adventure, and\nthe tendency is to make our country greater and stronger. The West\nIndian Islands ought to be ours, and some day our flag will float\nthere. This country must not stop growing.\n\n_Question_. Is the spirit of patriotism declining in America?\n\n_Answer_. There has been no decline in the spirit of American\npatriotism; in fact, it has increased rather then otherwise as the\nnation has grown older, stronger, more prosperous, more glorious.\nIf there were occasion to demonstrate the truth of this statement\nit would be quickly demonstrated. Let an attack be made upon the\nAmerican flag, and you will very quickly find out how genuine is\nthe patriotic spirit of Americans.\n\nI do not think either that there has been a decline in the celebration\nof the Fourth of July. The day is probably not celebrated with as\nmuch burning of gunpowder and shooting of fire crackers in the\nlarge cities as formerly, but it is celebrated with as much enthusiasm\nas ever all through the West, and the feeling of rejoicing over\nthe anniversary of the day is as great and strong as ever. The\npeople are tired of celebrating with a great noise and I am glad\nof it.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the Congress of Religions, to be\nheld in Chicago during the World's Fair?\n\n_Answer_. It will do good, if they will honestly compare their\ncreeds so that each one can see just how foolish all the rest are.\nThey ought to compare their sacred books, and their miracles, and\ntheir mythologies, and if they do so they will probably see that\nignorance is the mother of them all. Let them have a Congress, by\nall means, and let them show how priests live on the labor of those\nthey deceive. It will do good.\n\n_Question_. Do you think that Cleveland's course as to appointments\nhas strengthened him with the people?\n\n_Answer_. Patronage is a two-edged sword with very little handle.\nIt takes an exceedingly clever President to strengthen himself by\nits exercise. When a man is running for President the twenty men\nin every town who expect to be made postmaster are for him heart\nand soul. Only one can get the office, and the nineteen who do\nnot, feel outraged, and the lucky one is mad on account of the\ndelay. So twenty friends are lost with one place.\n\n_Question_. Is the Age of Chivalry dead?\n\n_Answer_. The \"Age of Chivalry\" never existed except in the\nimagination. The Age of Chivalry was the age of cowardice and\ncrime.\n\nThere is more chivalry to-day than ever. Men have a better, a\nclearer idea of justice, and pay their debts better, and treat\ntheir wives and children better than ever before. The higher and\nbetter qualities of the soul have more to do with the average life.\nTo-day men have greater admiration and respect for women, greater\nregard for the social and domestic obligations than their fathers\nhad.\n\n_Question_. What led you to begin lecturing on your present subject,\nand what was your first lecture?\n\n_Answer_. My first lecture was entitled \"Progress.\" I began\nlecturing because I thought the creeds of the orthodox church false\nand horrible, and because I thought the Bible cruel and absurd,\nand because I like intellectual liberty.\n\n--New York, May 5, 1893.\n\n\nSUNDAY A DAY OF PLEASURE.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the religious spirit that seeks\nto regulate by legislation the manner in which the people of this\ncountry shall spend their Sundays?\n\n_Answer_. The church is not willing to stand alone, not willing\nto base its influence on reason and on the character of its members.\nIt seeks the aid of the State. The cross is in partnership with\nthe sword. People should spend Sundays as they do other days; that\nis to say, as they please. No one has the right to do anything on\nMonday that interferes with the rights of his neighbors, and everyone\nhas the right to do anything he pleases on Sunday that does not\ninterfere with the rights of his neighbors. Sunday is a day of\nrest, not of religion. We are under obligation to do right on all\ndays.\n\nNothing can be more absurd than the idea that any particular space\nof time is sacred. Everything in nature goes on the same on Sunday\nas on other days, and if beyond nature there be a God, then God\nworks on Sunday as he does on all other days. There is no rest in\nnature. There is perpetual activity in every possible direction.\nThe old idea that God made the world and then rested, is idiotic.\nThere were two reasons given to the Hebrews for keeping the Sabbath\n--one because Jehovah rested on that day, the other because the\nHebrews were brought out of Egypt. The first reason, we know, is\nfalse, and the second reason is good only for the Hebrews. According\nto the Bible, Sunday, or rather the Sabbath, was not for the world,\nbut for the Hebrews, and the Hebrews alone. Our Sunday is pagan\nand is the day of the sun, as Monday is the day of the moon. All\nour day names are pagan. I am opposed to all Sunday legislation.\n\n_Question_. Why should Sunday be observed otherwise than as a day\nof recreation?\n\n_Answer_. Sunday is a day of recreation, or should be; a day for\nthe laboring man to rest, a day to visit museums and libraries, a\nday to look at pictures, a day to get acquainted with your wife\nand children, a day for poetry and art, a day on which to read old\nletters and to meet friends, a day to cultivate the amenities of\nlife, a day for those who live in tenements to feel the soft grass\nbeneath their feet. In short, Sunday should be a day of joy. The\nchurch endeavors to fill it with gloom and sadness, with stupid\nsermons and dyspeptic theology.\n\nNothing could be more cowardly than the effort to compel the\nobservance of the Sabbath by law. We of America have outgrown the\nchildishness of the last century; we laugh at the superstitions of\nour fathers. We have made up our minds to be as happy as we can\nbe, knowing that the way to be happy is to make others so, that\nthe time to be happy is now, whether that now is Sunday or any\nother day in the week.\n\n_Question_. Under a Federal Constitution guaranteeing civil and\nreligious liberty, are the so-called \"Blue Laws\" constitutional?\n\n_Answer_. No, they are not. But the probability is that the\nSupreme Courts of most of the States would decide the other way.\nAnd yet all these laws are clearly contrary to the spirit of the\nFederal Constitution and the constitutions of most of the States.\n\nI hope to live until all these foolish laws are repealed and until\nwe are in the highest and noblest sense a free people. And by free\nI mean each having the right to do anything that does not interfere\nwith the rights or with the happiness of another. I want to see\nthe time when we live for this world and when all shall endeavor\nto increase, by education, by reason, and by persuasion, the sum\nof human happiness.\n\n--_New York Times_, July 21, 1893.\n\n\nTHE PARLIAMENT OF RELIGIONS.\n\n_Question_. The Parliament of Religions was called with a view to\ndiscussing the great religions of the world on the broad platform\nof tolerance. Supposing this to have been accomplished, what effect\nis it likely to have on the future of creeds?\n\n_Answer_. It was a good thing to get the representatives of all\ncreeds to meet and tell their beliefs. The tendency, I think, is\nto do away with prejudice, with provincialism, with egotism. We\nknow that the difference between the great religions, so far as\nbelief is concerned, amounts to but little. Their gods have\ndifferent names, but in other respects they differ but little.\nThey are all cruel and ignorant.\n\n_Question_. Do you think likely that the time is coming when all\nthe religions of the world will be treated with the liberality that\nis now characterizing the attitude of one sect toward another in\nChristendom?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, because I think that all religions will be found\nto be of equal authority, and because I believe that the supernatural\nwill be discarded and that man will give up his vain and useless\nefforts to get back of nature--to answer the questions of whence\nand whither? As a matter of fact, the various sects do not love\none another. The keenest hatred is religious hatred. The most\nmalicious malice is found in the hearts of those who love their\nenemies.\n\n_Question_. Bishop Newman, in replying to a learned Buddhist at\nthe Parliament of Religions, said that Buddhism had given to the\nworld no helpful literature, no social system, and no heroic virtues.\nIs this true?\n\n_Answer_. Bishop Newman is a very prejudiced man. Probably he\ngot his information from the missionaries. Buddha was undoubtedly\na great teacher. Long before Christ lived Buddha taught the\nbrotherhood of man. He said that intelligence was the only lever\ncapable of raising mankind. His followers, to say the least of\nthem, are as good as the followers of Christ. Bishop Newman is a\nMethodist--a follower of John Wesley--and he has the prejudices of\nthe sect to which he belongs. We must remember that all prejudices\nare honest.\n\n_Question_. Is Christian society, or rather society in Christian\ncountries, cursed with fewer robbers, assassins, and thieves,\nproportionately, then countries where \"heathen\" religions\npredominate?\n\n_Answer_. I think not. I do not believe that there are more\nlynchings, more mob murders in India or Turkey or Persia than in\nsome Christian States of the great Republic. Neither will you find\nmore train robbers, more forgers, more thieves in heathen lands\nthan in Christian countries. Here the jails are full, the\npenitentiaries are crowded, and the hangman is busy. All over\nChristendom, as many assert, crime is on the increase, going hand\nin hand with poverty. The truth is, that some of the wisest and\nbest men are filled with apprehension for the future, but I believe\nin the race and have confidence in man.\n\n_Question_. How can society be so reconstructed that all this\nhorrible suffering, resultant from poverty and its natural associate,\ncrime, may be abolished, or at least reduced to a minimum?\n\n_Answer_. In the first place we should stop supporting the useless.\nThe burden of superstition should be taken from the shoulders of\nindustry. In the next place men should stop bowing to wealth\ninstead of worth. Men should be judged by what they do, by what\nthey are, instead of by the property they have. Only those able\nto raise and educate children should have them. Children should\nbe better born--better educated. The process of regeneration will\nbe slow, but it will be sure. The religion of our day is supported\nby the worst, by the most dangerous people in society. I do not\nallude to murderers or burglars, or even to the little thieves.\nI mean those who debauch courts and legislatures and elections--\nthose who make millions by legal fraud.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the Theosophists? Are they\nsincere--have they any real basis for their psychological theories?\n\n_Answer_. The Theosophists may be sincere. I do not know. But\nI am perfectly satisfied that their theories are without any\nfoundation in fact--that their doctrines are as unreal as their\n\"astral bodies,\" and as absurd as a contradiction in mathematics.\nWe have had vagaries and theories enough. We need the religion of\nthe real, the faith that rests on fact. Let us turn our attention\nto this world--the world in which we live.\n\n--_New York Herald_, September, 1893.\n\n\nCLEVELAND'S HAWAIIAN POLICY.\n\n_Question_. Colonel, what do you think about Mr. Cleveland's\nHawaiian policy?\n\n_Answer_. I think it exceedingly laughable and a little dishonest\n--with the further fault that it is wholly unconstitutional. This\nis not a one-man Government, and while Liliuokalani may be Queen,\nCleveland is certainly not a king. The worst thing about the whole\nmatter, as it appears to me, is the bad faith that was shown by\nMr. Cleveland--the double-dealing. He sent Mr. Willis as Minister\nto the Provisional Government and by that act admitted the existence,\nand the rightful existence, of the Provisional Government of the\nSandwich Islands.\n\nWhen Mr. Willis started he gave him two letters. One was addressed\nto Dole, President of the Provisional Government, in which he\naddressed Dole as \"Great and good friend,\" and at the close, being\na devout Christian, he asked \"God to take care of Dole.\" This was\nthe first letter. The letter of one President to another; of one\nfriend to another. The second letter was addressed to Mr. Willis,\nin which Mr. Willis was told to upset Dole at the first opportunity\nand put the deposed Queen back on her throne. This may be diplomacy,\nbut it is no kin to honesty.\n\nIn my judgment, it is the worst thing connected with the Hawaiian\naffair. What must \"the great and good\" Dole think of our great\nand good President? What must other nations think when they read\nthe two letters and mentally exclaim, \"Look upon this and then upon\nthat?\" I think Mr. Cleveland has acted arrogantly, foolishly, and\nunfairly. I am in favor of obtaining the Sandwich Islands--of\ncourse by fair means. I favor this policy because I want my country\nto become a power in the Pacific. All my life I have wanted this\ncountry to own the West Indies, the Bermudas, the Bahamas and\nBarbadoes. They are our islands. They belong to this continent,\nand for any other nation to take them or claim them was, and is,\na piece of impertinence and impudence.\n\nSo I would like to see the Sandwich Islands annexed to the United\nStates. They are a good way from San Francisco and our Western\nshore, but they are nearer to us than they are to any other nation.\nI think they would be of great importance. They would tend to\nincrease the Asiatic trade, and they certainly would be important\nin case of war. We should have fortifications on those islands\nthat no naval power could take.\n\nSome objection has been made on the ground that under our system\nthe people of those islands would have to be represented in Congress.\nI say yes, represented by a delegate until the islands become a\nreal part of the country, and by that time, there would be several\nhundred thousand Americans living there, capable of sending over\nrespectable members of Congress.\n\nNow, I think that Mr. Cleveland has made a very great mistake.\nFirst, I think he was mistaken as to the facts in the Sandwich\nIslands; second, as to the Constitution of the United States, and\nthirdly, as to the powers of the President of the United States.\n\n_Question_. In your experience as a lawyer what was the most unique\ncase in which you were ever engaged?\n\n_Answer_. The Star Route trial. Every paper in the country, but\none, was against the defence, and that one was a little sheet owned\nby one of the defendants. I received a note from a man living in\na little town in Ohio criticizing me for defending the accused.\nIn reply I wrote that I supposed he was a sensible man and that\nhe, of course, knew what he was talking about when he said the\naccused were guilty; that the Government needed just such men as\nhe, and that he should come to the trial at once and testify. The\nman wrote back: \"Dear Colonel: I am a ---- fool.\"\n\n_Question_. Will the church and the stage ever work together for\nthe betterment of the world, and what is the province of each?\n\n_Answer_. The church and stage will never work together. The\npulpit pretends that fiction is fact. The stage pretends that\nfiction is fact. The pulpit pretence is dishonest--that of the\nstage is sincere. The actor is true to art, and honestly pretends\nto be what he is not. The actor is natural, if he is great, and\nin this naturalness is his truth and his sincerity. The pulpit is\nunnatural, and for that reason untrue. The pulpit is for another\nworld, the stage for this. The stage is good because it is natural,\nbecause it portrays real and actual life; because \"it holds the\nmirror up to nature.\" The pulpit is weak because it too often\nbelittles and demeans this life; because it slanders and calumniates\nthe natural and is the enemy of joy.\n\n--_The Inter-Ocean_, Chicago, February 2, 1894.\n\n\nORATORS AND ORATORY.*\n\n[* It was at his own law office in New York City that I had my talk\nwith that very notable American, Col. Robert G. Ingersoll. \"Bob\"\nIngersoll, Americans call him affectionately; in a company of friends\nit is \"The Colonel.\"\n\nA more interesting personality it would be hard to find, and those\nwho know even a little of him will tell you that a bigger-hearted\nman probably does not live. Suppose a well-knit frame, grown\nstouter than it once was, and a fine, strong face, with a vivid\ngleam in the eyes, a deep, uncommonly musical voice, clear cut,\ndecisive, and a manner entirely delightful, yet tinged with a\ncertain reserve. Introduce a smoking cigar, the smoke rising in\nlittle curls and billows, then imagine a rugged sort of picturesqueness\nin dress, and you get, not by any means the man, but, still, some\nnotion of \"Bob\" Ingersoll.\n\nColonel Ingersoll stands at the front of American orators. The\nnatural thing, therefore, was that I should ask him--a master in\nthe art--about oratory. What he said I shall give in his own words\nprecisely as I took them down from his lips, for in the case of\nsuch a good commander of the old English tongue that is of some\nimportance. But the wonderful limpidness, the charming pellucidness\nof Ingersoll can only be adequately understood when you also have\nthe finishing touch of his facile voice.]\n\n_Question_. I should be glad if you would tell me what you think\nthe differences are between English and American oratory?\n\n_Answer_. There is no difference between the real English and the\nreal American orator. Oratory is the same the world over. The\nman who thinks on his feet, who has the pose of passion, the face\nthat thought illumines, a voice in harmony with the ideals expressed,\nwho has logic like a column and poetry like a vine, who transfigures\nthe common, dresses the ideals of the people in purple and fine\nlinen, who has the art of finding the best and noblest in his\nhearers, and who in a thousand ways creates the climate in which\nthe best grows and flourishes and bursts into blossom--that man is\nan orator, no matter of what time, of what country.\n\n_Question_. If you were to compare individual English and American\norators--recent or living orators in particular--what would you say?\n\n_Answer_. I have never heard any of the great English speakers,\nand consequently can pass no judgment as to their merits, except\nsuch as depends on reading. I think, however, the finest paragraph\never uttered in Great Britain was by Curran in his defence of Rowan.\nI have never read one of Mr. Gladstone's speeches, only fragments.\nI think he lacks logic. Bright was a great speaker, but he lacked\nimagination and the creative faculty. Disraeli spoke for the clubs,\nand his speeches were artificial. We have had several fine speakers\nin America. I think that Thomas Corwin stands at the top of the\nnatural orators. Sergeant S. Prentiss, the lawyer, was a very\ngreat talker; Henry Ward Beecher was the greatest orator that the\npulpit has produced. Theodore Parker was a great orator. In this\ncountry, however, probably Daniel Webster occupies the highest\nplace in general esteem.\n\n_Question_. Which would you say are the better orators, speaking\ngenerally, the American people or the English people?\n\n_Answer_. I think Americans are, on the average, better talkers\nthan the English. I think England has produced the greatest\nliterature of the world; but I do not think England has produced\nthe greatest orators of the world. I know of no English orator\nequal to Webster or Corwin or Beecher.\n\n_Question_. Would you mind telling me how it was you came to be\na public speaker, a lecturer, an orator?\n\n_Answer_. We call this America of ours free, and yet I found it\nwas very far from free. Our writers and our speakers declared that\nhere in America church and state were divorced. I found this to\nbe untrue. I found that the church was supported by the state in\nmany ways, that people who failed to believe certain portions of\nthe creeds were not allowed to testify in courts or to hold office.\nIt occurred to me that some one ought to do something toward making\nthis country intellectually free, and after a while I thought that\nI might as well endeavor to do this as wait for another. This is\nthe way in which I came to make speeches; it was an action in favor\nof liberty. I have said things because I wanted to say them, and\nbecause I thought they ought to be said.\n\n_Question_. Perhaps you will tell me your methods as a speaker,\nfor I'm sure it would be interesting to know them?\n\n_Answer_. Sometimes, and frequently, I deliver a lecture several\ntimes before it is written. I have it taken by a shorthand writer,\nand afterward written out. At other times I have dictated a lecture,\nand delivered it from manuscript. The course pursued depends on\nhow I happen to feel at the time. Sometimes I read a lecture, and\nsometimes I deliver lectures without any notes--this, again,\ndepending much on how I happen to feel. So far as methods are\nconcerned, everything should depend on feeling. Attitude, gestures,\nvoice, emphasis, should all be in accord with and spring from\nfeeling, from the inside.\n\n_Question_. Is there any possibility of your coming to England,\nand, I need hardly add, of your coming to speak?\n\n_Answer_. I have thought of going over to England, and I may do\nso. There is an England in England for which I have the highest\npossible admiration, the England of culture, of art, of principle.\n\n--_The Sketch_, London, Eng., March 21, 1894.\n\n\nCATHOLICISM AND PROTESTANTISM. THE POPE, THE A. P. A., AGNOSTICISM\nAND THE CHURCH.\n\n_Question_. Which do you regard as the better, Catholicism or\nProtestantism?\n\n_Answer_. Protestantism is better than Catholicism because there\nis less of it. Protestantism does not teach that a monk is better\nthan a husband and father, that a nun is holier than a mother.\nProtestants do not believe in the confessional. Neither do they\npretend that priests can forgive sins. Protestantism has fewer\nceremonies and less opera bouffe, clothes, caps, tiaras, mitres,\ncrooks and holy toys. Catholics have an infallible man--an old\nItalian. Protestants have an infallible book, written by Hebrews\nbefore they were civilized. The infallible man is generally wrong,\nand the infallible book is filled with mistakes and contradictions.\nCatholics and Protestants are both enemies of intellectual freedom\n--of real education, but both are opposed to education enough to\nmake free men and women.\n\nBetween the Catholics and Protestants there has been about as much\ndifference as there is between crocodiles and alligators. Both\nhave done the worst they could, both are as bad as they can be,\nand the world is getting tired of both. The world is not going to\nchoose either--both are to be rejected.\n\n_Question_. Are you willing to give your opinion of the Pope?\n\n_Answer_. It may be that the Pope thinks he is infallible, but I\ndoubt it. He may think that he is the agent of God, but I guess\nnot. He may know more than other people, but if he does he has\nkept it to himself. He does not seem satisfied with standing in\nthe place and stead of God in spiritual matters, but desires temporal\npower. He wishes to be Pope and King. He imagines that he has\nthe right to control the belief of all the world; that he is the\nshepherd of all \"sheep\" and that the fleeces belong to him. He\nthinks that in his keeping is the conscience of mankind. So he\nimagines that his blessing is a great benefit to the faithful and\nthat his prayers can change the course of natural events. He is\na strange mixture of the serious and comical. He claims to represent\nGod, and admits that he is almost a prisoner. There is something\npathetic in the condition of this pontiff. When I think of him,\nI think of Lear on the heath, old, broken, touched with insanity,\nand yet, in his own opinion, \"every inch a king.\"\n\nThe Pope is a fragment, a remnant, a shred, a patch of ancient\npower and glory. He is a survival of the unfittest, a souvenir of\ntheocracy, a relic of the supernatural. Of course he will have a\nfew successors, and they will become more and more comical, more\nand more helpless and impotent as the world grows wise and free.\nI am not blaming the Pope. He was poisoned at the breast of his\nmother. Superstition was mingled with her milk. He was poisoned\nat school--taught to distrust his reason and to live by faith.\nAnd so it may be that his mind was so twisted and tortured out of\nshape that he now really believes that he is the infallible agent\nof an infinite God.\n\n_Question_. Are you in favor of the A. P. A.?\n\n_Answer_. In this country I see no need of secret political\nsocieties. I think it better to fight in the open field. I am a\nbeliever in religious liberty, in allowing all sects to preach\ntheir doctrines and to make as many converts as they can. As long\nas we have free speech and a free press I think there is no danger\nof the country being ruled by any church. The Catholics are much\nbetter than their creed, and the same can be said of nearly all\nmembers of orthodox churches. A majority of American Catholics\nthink a great deal more of this country than they do of their\nchurch. When they are in good health they are on our side. It is\nonly when they are very sick that they turn their eyes toward Rome.\nIf they were in the majority, of course, they would destroy all\nother churches and imprison, torture and kill all Infidels. But\nthey will never be in the majority. They increase now only because\nCatholics come in from other countries. In a few years that supply\nwill cease, and then the Catholic Church will grow weaker every\nday. The free secular school is the enemy of priestcraft and\nsuperstition, and the people of this country will never consent to\nthe destruction of that institution. I want no man persecuted on\naccount of his religion.\n\n_Question_. If there is no beatitude, or heaven, how do you account\nfor the continual struggle in every natural heart for its own\nbetterment?\n\n_Answer_. Man has many wants, and all his efforts are the children\nof wants. If he wanted nothing he would do nothing. We civilize\nthe savage by increasing his wants, by cultivating his fancy, his\nappetites, his desires. He is then willing to work to satisfy\nthese new wants. Man always tries to do things in the easiest way.\nHis constant effort is to accomplish more with less work. He\ninvents a machine; then he improves it, his idea being to make it\nperfect. He wishes to produce the best. So in every department\nof effort and knowledge he seeks the highest success, and he seeks\nit because it is for his own good here in this world. So he finds\nthat there is a relation between happiness and conduct, and he\ntries to find out what he must do to produce the greatest enjoyment.\nThis is the basis of morality, of law and ethics. We are so\nconstituted that we love proportion, color, harmony. This is the\nartistic man. Morality is the harmony and proportion of conduct--\nthe music of life. Man continually seeks to better his condition\n--not because he is immortal--but because he is capable of grief\nand pain, because he seeks for happiness. Man wishes to respect\nhimself and to gain the respect of others. The brain wants light,\nthe heart wants love. Growth is natural. The struggle to overcome\ntemptation, to be good and noble, brave and sincere, to reach, if\npossible, the perfect, is no evidence of the immortality of the\nsoul or of the existence of other worlds. Men live to excel, to\nbecome distinguished, to enjoy, and so they strive, each in his\nown way, to gain the ends desired.\n\n_Question_. Do you believe that the race is growing moral or\nimmoral?\n\n_Answer_. The world is growing better. There is more real liberty,\nmore thought, more intelligence than ever before. The world was\nnever so charitable or generous as now. We do not put honest\ndebtors in prison, we no longer believe in torture. Punishments\nare less severe. We place a higher value on human life. We are\nfar kinder to animals. To this, however, there is one terrible\nexception. The vivisectors, those who cut, torture, and mutilate\nin the name of science, disgrace our age. They excite the horror\nand indignation of all good people. Leave out the actions of those\nwretches, and animals are better treated than ever before. So\nthere is less beating of wives and whipping of children. The whip\nin no longer found in the civilized home. Intelligent parents now\ngovern by kindness, love and reason. The standard of honor is\nhigher than ever. Contracts are more sacred, and men do nearer as\nthey agree. Man has more confidence in his fellow-man, and in the\ngoodness of human nature. Yes, the world is getting better, nobler\nand grander every day. We are moving along the highway of progress\non our way to the Eden of the future.\n\n_Question_. Are the doctrines of Agnosticism gaining ground, and\nwhat, in your opinion, will be the future of the church?\n\n_Answer_. The Agnostic is intellectually honest. He knows the\nlimitations of his mind. He is convinced that the questions of\norigin and destiny cannot be answered by man. He knows that he\ncannot answer these questions, and he is candid enough to say so.\nThe Agnostic has good mental manners. He does not call belief or\nhope or wish, a demonstration. He knows the difference between\nhope and belief--between belief and knowledge--and he keeps these\ndistinctions in his mind. He does not say that a certain theory\nis true because he wishes it to be true. He tries to go according\nto evidence, in harmony with facts, without regard to his own\ndesires or the wish of the public. He has the courage of his\nconvictions and the modesty of his ignorance. The theologian is\nhis opposite. He is certain and sure of the existence of things\nand beings and worlds of which there is, and can be, no evidence.\nHe relies on assertion, and in all debate attacks the motive of\nhis opponent instead of answering his arguments. All savages know\nthe origin and destiny of man. About other things they know but\nlittle. The theologian is much the same. The Agnostic has given\nup the hope of ascertaining the nature of the \"First Cause\"--the\nhope of ascertaining whether or not there was a \"First Cause.\" He\nadmits that he does not know whether or not there is an infinite\nBeing. He admits that these questions cannot be answered, and so\nhe refuses to answer. He refuses also to pretend. He knows that\nthe theologian does not know, and he has the courage to say so.\n\nHe knows that the religious creeds rest on assumption, supposition,\nassertion--on myth and legend, on ignorance and superstition, and\nthat there is no evidence of their truth. The Agnostic bends his\nenergies in the opposite direction. He occupies himself with this\nworld, with things that can be ascertained and understood. He\nturns his attention to the sciences, to the solution of questions\nthat touch the well-being of man. He wishes to prevent and cure\ndiseases; to lengthen life; to provide homes and raiment and food\nfor man; to supply the wants of the body.\n\nHe also cultivates the arts. He believes in painting and sculpture,\nin music and the drama--the needs of the soul. The Agnostic believes\nin developing the brain, in cultivating the affections, the tastes,\nthe conscience, the judgment, to the end that man may be happy in\nthis world. He seeks to find the relation of things, the condition\nof happiness. He wishes to enslave the forces of nature to the\nend that they may perform the work of the world. Back of all\nprogress are the real thinkers; the finders of facts, those who\nturn their attention to the world in which we live. The theologian\nhas never been a help, always a hindrance. He has always kept his\nback to the sunrise. With him all wisdom was in the past. He\nappealed to the dead. He was and is the enemy of reason, of\ninvestigation, of thought and progress. The church has never given\n\"sanctuary\" to a persecuted truth.\n\nThere can be no doubt that the ideas of the Agnostic are gaining\nground. The scientific spirit has taken possession of the intellectual\nworld. Theological methods are unpopular to-day, even in theological\nschools. The attention of men everywhere is being directed to the\naffairs of this world, this life. The gods are growing indistinct,\nand, like the shapes of clouds, they are changing as they fade.\nThe idea of special providence has been substantially abandoned.\nPeople are losing, and intelligent people have lost, confidence in\nprayer. To-day no intelligent person believes in miracles--a\nviolation of the facts in nature. They may believe that there used\nto be miracles a good while ago, but not now. The \"supernatural\"\nis losing its power, its influence, and the church is growing weaker\nevery day.\n\nThe church is supported by the people, and in order to gain the\nsupport of the people it must reflect their ideas, their hopes and\nfears. As the people advance, the creeds will be changed, either\nby changing the words or giving new meanings to the old words.\nThe church, in order to live, must agree substantially with those\nwho support it, and consequently it will change to any extent that\nmay be necessary. If the church remains true to the old standards\nthen it will lose the support of progressive people, and if the\npeople generally advance the church will die. But my opinion is\nthat it will slowly change, that the minister will preach what the\nmembers want to hear, and that the creed will be controlled by the\ncontribution box. One of these days the preachers may become\nteachers, and when that happens the church will be of use.\n\n_Question_. What do you regard as the greatest of all themes in\npoetry and song?\n\n_Answer_. Love and Death. The same is true of the greatest music.\nIn \"Tristan and Isolde\" is the greatest music of love and death.\nIn Shakespeare the greatest themes are love and death. In all real\npoetry, in all real music, the dominant, the triumphant tone, is\nlove, and the minor, the sad refrain, the shadow, the background,\nthe mystery, is death.\n\n_Question_. What would be your advice to an intelligent young man\njust starting out in life?\n\n_Answer_. I would say to him: \"Be true to your ideal. Cultivate\nyour heart and brain. Follow the light of your reason. Get all\nthe happiness out of life that you possibly can. Do not care for\npower, but strive to be useful. First of all, support yourself so\nthat you may not be a burden to others. If you are successful, if\nyou gain a surplus, use it for the good of others. Own yourself\nand live and die a free man. Make your home a heaven, love your\nwife and govern your children by kindness. Be good natured,\ncheerful, forgiving and generous. Find out the conditions of\nhappiness, and then be wise enough to live in accordance with them.\nCultivate intellectual hospitality, express your honest thoughts,\nlove your friends, and be just to your enemies.\"\n\n--_New York Herald_, September 16, 1894.\n\n\nWOMAN AND HER DOMAIN.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of the effect of the multiplicity\nof women's clubs as regards the intellectual, moral and domestic\nstatus of their members?\n\n_Answer_. I think that women should have clubs and societies, that\nthey should get together and exchange ideas. Women, as a rule,\nare provincial and conservative. They keep alive all the sentimental\nmistakes and superstitions. Now, if they can only get away from\nthese, and get abreast with the tide of the times, and think as\nwell as feel, it will be better for them and their children. You\nknow St. Paul tells women that if they want to know anything they\nmust ask their husbands. For many centuries they have followed\nthis orthodox advice, and of course they have not learned a great\ndeal, because their husbands could not answer their questions.\nHusbands, as a rule, do not know a great deal, and it will not do\nfor every wife to depend on the ignorance of her worst half. The\nwomen of to-day are the great readers, and no book is a great\nsuccess unless it pleases the women.\n\nAs a result of this, all the literature of the world has changed,\nso that now in all departments the thoughts of women are taken into\nconsideration, and women have thoughts, because they are the\nintellectual equals of men.\n\nThere are no statesmen in this country the equals of Harriet\nMartineau; probably no novelists the equals of George Eliot or\nGeorge Sand, and I think Ouida the greatest living novelist. I\nthink her \"Ariadne\" is one of the greatest novels in the English\nlanguage. There are few novels better than \"Consuelo,\" few poems\nbetter than \"Mother and Poet.\"\n\nSo in all departments women are advancing; some of them have taken\nthe highest honors at medical colleges; others are prominent in the\nsciences, some are great artists, and there are several very fine\nsculptors, &c., &c.\n\nSo you can readily see what my opinion is on that point.\n\nI am in favor of giving woman all the domain she conquers, and as\nthe world becomes civilized the domain that she can conquer will\nsteadily increase.\n\n_Question_. But, Colonel, is there no danger of greatly interfering\nwith a woman's duties as wife and mother?\n\n_Answer_. I do not think that it is dangerous to think, or that\nthought interferes with love or the duties of wife or mother. I\nthink the contrary is the truth; the greater the brain the greater\nthe power to love, the greater the power to discharge all duties\nand obligations, so I have no fear for the future. About women\nvoting I don't care; whatever they want to do they have my consent.\n\n--_The Democrat_, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1894.\n\n\nPROFESSOR SWING.\n\n_Question_. Since you were last in this city, Colonel, a distinguished\nman has passed away in the person of Professor Swing. The public\nwill be interested to have your opinion of him.\n\n_Answer_. I think Professor Swing did a great amount of good. He\nhelped to civilize the church and to humanize the people. His\ninfluence was in the right direction--toward the light. In his\nyouth he was acquainted with toil, poverty, and hardship; his road\nwas filled with thorns, and yet he lived and scattered flowers in\nthe paths of many people. At first his soul was in the dungeon of\na savage creed, where the windows were very small and closely\ngrated, and though which struggled only a few rays of light. He\nlonged for more light and for more liberty, and at last his fellow-\nprisoners drove him forth, and from that time until his death he\ndid what he could to give light and liberty to the souls of men.\nHe was a lover of nature, poetic in his temperament, charitable\nand merciful. As an orator he may have lacked presence, pose and\nvoice, but he did not lack force of statement or beauty of expression.\nHe was a man of wide learning, of great admiration of the heroic\nand tender. He did what he could to raise the standard of character,\nto make his fellow-men just and noble. He lost the provincialism\nof his youth and became in a very noble sense a citizen of the\nworld. He understood that all the good is not in our race or in\nour religion--that in every land there are good and noble men, self-\ndenying and lovely women, and that in most respects other religions\nare as good as ours, and in many respects better. This gave him\nbreadth of intellectual horizon and enlarged his sympathy for the\nfailures of the world. I regard his death as a great loss, and\nhis life as a lesson and inspiration.\n\n--_Inter-Ocean_, Chicago, October 13, 1894.\n\n\nSENATOR SHERMAN AND HIS BOOK.*\n\n[* No one is better qualified than Robert G. Ingersoll to talk\nabout Senator Sherman's book and the questions it raises in political\nhistory. Mr. Ingersoll was for years a resident of Washington and\na next-door neighbor to Mr. Sherman; he was for an even longer period\nthe intimate personal friend of James G. Blaine; he knew Garfield\nfrom almost daily contact, and of the Republican National Conventions\nconcerning which Senator Sherman has raised points of controversy\nMr. Ingersoll can say, as the North Carolinian said of the Confederacy:\n\"Part of whom I am which.\"\n\nHe placed Blaine's name before the convention at Cincinnati in\n1876. He made the first of the three great nominating speeches in\nconvention history, Conkling and Garfield making the others in 1880.\n\nThe figure of the Plumed Knight which Mr. Ingersoll created to\ncharacterize Mr. Blaine is part of the latter's memory. At Chicago,\nfour years later, when Garfield, dazed by the irresistible doubt\nof the convention, was on the point of refusing that in the acceptance\nof which he had no voluntary part, Ingersoll was the adviser who\nshowed him that duty to Sherman required no such action.]\n\n_Question_. What do you think of Senator Sherman's book--especially\nthe part about Garfield?\n\n_Answer_. Of course, I have only read a few extracts from Mr.\nSherman's reminiscences, but I am perfectly satisfied that the\nSenator is mistaken about Garfield's course. The truth is that\nGarfield captured the convention by his course from day to day,\nand especially by the speech he made for Sherman. After that\nspeech, and it was a good one, the best Garfield ever made, the\nconvention said, \"Speak for yourself, John.\"\n\nIt was perfectly apparent that if the Blaine and Sherman forces\nshould try to unite, Grant would be nominated. It had to be Grant\nor a new man, and that man was Garfield. It all came about without\nGarfield's help, except in the way I have said. Garfield even went\nso far as to declare that under no circumstances could he accept,\nbecause he was for Sherman, and honestly for him. He told me that\nhe would not allow his name to go before the convention. Just\nbefore he was nominated I wrote him a note in which I said he was\nabout to be nominated, and that he must not decline. I am perfectly\nsatisfied that he acted with perfect honor, and that he did his\nbest for Sherman.\n\n_Question_. Mr. Sherman expresses the opinion that if he had had\nthe \"moral strength\" of the Ohio delegation in his support he would\nhave been nominated?\n\n_Answer_. We all know that while Senator Sherman had many friends,\nand that while many thought he would make an excellent President,\nstill there was but little enthusiasm among his followers. Sherman\nhad the respect of the party, but hardly the love.\n\n_Question_. In his book the Senator expresses the opinion that he\nwas quite close to the nomination in 1888, when Mr. Quay was for\nhim. Do you think that is so, Mr. Ingersoll?\n\n_Answer_. I think Mr. Sherman had a much better chance in 1888\nthan in 1880, but as a matter of fact, he never came within hailing\ndistance of success at any time. He is not of the nature to sway\ngreat bodies of men. He lacks the power to impress himself upon\nothers to such an extent as to make friends of enemies and devotees\nof friends. Mr. Sherman has had a remarkable career, and I think\nthat he ought to be satisfied with what he has achieved.\n\n_Question_. Mr. Ingersoll, what do you think defeated Blaine for\nthe nomination in 1876?\n\n_Answer_. On the first day of the convention at Cincinnati it was\nknown that Blaine was the leading candidate. All of the enthusiasm\nwas for him. It was soon known that Conkling, Bristow or Morton\ncould not be nominated, and that in all probability Blaine would\nsucceed. The fact that Blaine had been attacked by vertigo, or\nhad suffered from a stroke of apoplexy, gave an argument to those\nwho opposed him, and this was used with great effect. After Blaine\nwas put in nomination, and before any vote was taken, the convention\nadjourned, and during the night a great deal of work was done.\nThe Michigan delegation was turned inside out and the Blaine forces\nraided in several States. Hayes, the dark horse, suddenly developed\nspeed, and the scattered forces rallied to his support. I have\nalways thought that if a ballot could have been taken on the day\nBlaine was put in nomination he would have succeeded, and yet he\nmight have been defeated for the nomination anyway.\n\nBlaine had the warmest friends and the bitterest enemies of any\nman in the party. People either loved or hated him. He had no\nmilk-and-water friends and no milk-and-water enemies.\n\n_Question_. If Blaine had been nominated at Cincinnati in 1876\nwould he have made a stronger candidate than Hayes did?\n\n_Answer_. If he had been nominated then, I believe that he would\nhave been triumphantly elected. Mr. Blaine's worst enemies would\nnot have supported Tilden, and thousands of moderate Democrats\nwould have given their votes to Blaine.\n\n_Question_. Mr. Ingersoll, do you think that Mr. Blaine wanted\nthe nomination in 1884, when he got it?\n\n_Answer_. In 1883, Mr. Blaine told me that he did not want the\nnomination. I said to him: \"Is that honest?\" He replied that he\ndid not want it, that he was tired of the whole business. I said:\n\"If you do not want it; if you have really reached that conclusion,\nthen I think you will get it.\" He laughed, and again said: \"I do\nnot want it.\" I believe that he spoke exactly as he then felt.\n\n_Question_. What do you think defeated Mr. Blaine at the polls in\n1884?\n\n_Answer_. Blaine was a splendid manager for another man, a great\nnatural organizer, and when acting for others made no mistake; but\nhe did not manage his own campaign with ability. He made a succession\nof mistakes. His suit against the Indianapolis editor; his letter\nabout the ownership of certain stocks; his reply to Burchard and\nthe preachers, in which he said that history showed the church\ncould get along without the state, but the state could not get\nalong without the church, and this in reply to the \"Rum, Romanism and\nRebellion\" nonsense; and last, but not least, his speech to the\nmillionaires in New York--all of these things weakened him. As a\nmatter of fact many Catholics were going to support Blaine, but\nwhen they saw him fooling with the Protestant clergy, and accepting\nthe speech of Burchard, they instantly turned against him. If he\nhad never met Burchard, I think he would have been elected. His\ncareer was something like that of Mr. Clay; he was the most popular\nman of his party and yet----\n\n_Question_. How do you account for Mr. Blaine's action in allowing\nhis name to go before the convention at Minneapolis in 1892?\n\n_Answer_. In 1892, Mr. Blaine was a sick man, almost worn out; he\nwas not his former self, and he was influenced by others. He seemed\nto have lost his intuition; he was misled, yet in spite of all\ndefeats, no name will create among Republicans greater enthusiasm\nthan that of James G. Blaine. Millions are still his devoted,\nunselfish and enthusiastic friends and defenders.\n\n--_The Globe-Democrat_, St. Louis, October 27, 1895.\n\n\nREPLY TO THE CHRISTIAN ENDEAVORERS.\n\n_Question_. How were you affected by the announcement that the\nunited prayers of the Salvationists and Christian Endeavorers were\nto be offered for your conversion?\n\n_Answer_. The announcement did not affect me to any great extent.\nI take it for granted that the people praying for me are sincere\nand that they have a real interest in my welfare. Of course, I\nthank them one and all. At the same time I can hardly account for\nwhat they did. Certainly they would not ask God to convert me\nunless they thought the prayer could be answered. And if their\nGod can convert me of course he can convert everybody. Then the\nquestion arises why he does not do it. Why does he let millions\ngo to hell when he can convert them all. Why did he not convert\nthem all before the flood and take them all to heaven instead of\ndrowning them and sending them all to hell. Of course these\nquestions can be answered by saying that God's ways are not our\nways. I am greatly obliged to these people. Still, I feel about\nthe same, so that it would be impossible to get up a striking\npicture of \"before and after.\" It was good-natured on their part\nto pray for me, and that act alone leads me to believe that there\nis still hope for them. The trouble with the Christian Endeavorers\nis that they don't give my arguments consideration. If they did\nthey would agree with me. It seemed curious that they would advise\ndivine wisdom what to do, or that they would ask infinite mercy to\ntreat me with kindness. If there be a God, of course he knows what\nought to be done, and will do it without any hints from ignorant\nhuman beings. Still, the Endeavorers and the Salvation people may\nknow more about God than I do. For all I know, this God may need\na little urging. He may be powerful but a little slow; intelligent\nbut sometimes a little drowsy, and it may do good now and then to\ncall his attention to the facts. The prayers did not, so far as\nI know, do me the least injury or the least good. I was glad to\nsee that the Christians are getting civilized. A few years ago\nthey would have burned me. Now they pray for me.\n\nSuppose God should answer the prayers and convert me, how would he\nbring the conversion about? In the first place, he would have to\nchange my brain and give me more credulity--that is, he would be\nobliged to lessen my reasoning power. Then I would believe not\nonly without evidence, but in spite of evidence. All the miracles\nwould appear perfectly natural. It would then seem as easy to\nraise the dead as to waken the sleeping. In addition to this, God\nwould so change my mind that I would hold all reason in contempt\nand put entire confidence in faith. I would then regard science\nas the enemy of human happiness, and ignorance as the soil in which\nvirtues grow. Then I would throw away Darwin and Humboldt, and\nrely on the sermons of orthodox preachers. In other words, I would\nbecome a little child and amuse myself with a religious rattle and\na Gabriel horn. Then I would rely on a man who has been dead for\nnearly two thousand years to secure me a seat in Paradise.\n\nAfter conversion, it is not pretended that I will be any better so\nfar as my actions are concerned; no more charitable, no more honest,\nno more generous. The great difference will be that I will believe\nmore and think less.\n\nAfter all, the converted people do not seem to be better than the\nsinners. I never heard of a poor wretch clad in rags, limping into\na town and asking for the house of a Christian.\n\nI think that I had better remain as I am. I had better follow the\nlight of my reason, be true to myself, express my honest thoughts,\nand do the little I can for the destruction of superstition, the\nlittle I can for the development of the brain, for the increase of\nintellectual hospitality and the happiness of my fellow-beings.\nOne world at a time.\n\n--_New York Journal_, December 15, 1895.\n\n\nSPIRITUALISM.\n\nThere are several good things about Spiritualism. First, they are\nnot bigoted; second, they do not believe in salvation by faith;\nthird, they don't expect to be happy in another world because Christ\nwas good in this; fourth, they do not preach the consolation of\nhell; fifth, they do not believe in God as an infinite monster;\nsixth, the Spiritualists believe in intellectual hospitality. In\nthese respects they differ from our Christian brethren, and in\nthese respects they are far superior to the saints.\n\nI think that the Spiritualists have done good. They believe in\nenjoying themselves--in having a little pleasure in this world.\nThey are social, cheerful and good-natured. They are not the slaves\nof a book. Their hands and feet are not tied with passages of\nScripture. They are not troubling themselves about getting\nforgiveness and settling their heavenly debts for a cent on the\ndollar. Their belief does not make then mean or miserable.\n\nThey do not persecute their neighbors. They ask no one to have\nfaith or to believe without evidence. They ask all to investigate,\nand then to make up their minds from the evidence. Hundreds and\nthousands of well-educated, intelligent people are satisfied with\nthe evidence and firmly believe in the existence of spirits. For\nall I know, they may be right--but----\n\n_Question_. The Spiritualists have indirectly claimed, that you\nwere in many respects almost one of them. Have you given them\nreason to believe so?\n\n_Answer_. I am not a Spiritualist, and have never pretended to\nbe. The Spiritualists believe in free thought, in freedom of\nspeech, and they are willing to hear the other side--willing to\nhear me. The best thing about the Spiritualists is that they\nbelieve in intellectual hospitality.\n\n_Question_. Is Spiritualism a religion or a truth?\n\n_Answer_. I think that Spiritualism may properly be called a\nreligion. It deals with two worlds--teaches the duty of man to\nhis fellows--the relation that this life bears to the next. It\nclaims to be founded on facts. It insists that the \"dead\" converse\nwith the living, and that information is received from those who\nonce lived in this world. Of the truth of these claims I have no\nsufficient evidence.\n\n_Question_. Are all mediums impostors?\n\n_Answer_. I will not say that all mediums are impostors, because\nI do not know. I do not believe that these mediums get any\ninformation or help from \"spirits.\" I know that for thousands of\nyears people have believed in mediums--in Spiritualism. A spirit\nin the form of a man appeared to Samson's mother, and afterward to\nhis father.\n\nSpirits, or angels, called on Abraham. The witch of Endor raised\nthe ghost of Samuel. An angel appeared with three men in the\nfurnace. The handwriting on the wall was done by a spirit. A\nspirit appeared to Joseph in a dream, to the wise men and to Joseph\nagain.\n\nSo a spirit, an angel or a god, spoke to Saul, and the same happened\nto Mary Magdalene.\n\nThe religious literature of the world is filled with such things.\nTake Spiritualism from Christianity and the whole edifice crumbles.\nAll religions, so far as I know, are based on Spiritualism--on\ncommunications received from angels, from spirits.\n\nI do not say that all the mediums, ancient and modern, were, and\nare, impostors--but I do think that all the honest ones were, and\nare, mistaken. I do not believe that man has ever received any\ncommunication from angels, spirits or gods. No whisper, as I\nbelieve, has ever come from any other world. The lips of the dead\nare always closed. From the grave there has come no voice. For\nthousands of years people have been questioning the dead. They\nhave tried to catch the whisper of a vanished voice. Many say that\nthey have succeeded. I do not know.\n\n_Question_. What is the explanation of the startling knowledge\ndisplayed by some so-called \"mediums\" of the history and personal\naffairs of people who consult them? Is there any such thing as\nmind-reading or thought-transference?\n\n_Answer_. In a very general way, I suppose that one person may\nread the thought of another--not definitely, but by the expression\nof the face, by the attitude of the body, some idea may be obtained\nas to what a person thinks, what he intends. So thought may be\ntransferred by look or language, but not simply by will. Everything\nthat is, is natural. Our ignorance is the soil in which mystery\ngrows. I do not believe that thoughts are things that can been\nseen or touched. Each mind lives in a world of its own, a world\nthat no other mind can enter. Minds, like ships at sea, give signs\nand signals to each other, but they do not exchange captains.\n\n_Question_. Is there any such thing as telepathy? What is the\nexplanation of the stories of mental impressions received at long\ndistances?\n\n_Answer_. There are curious coincidences. People sometimes happen\nto think of something that is taking place at a great distance.\nThe stories about these happenings are not very well authenticated,\nand seem never to have been of the least use to anyone.\n\n_Question_. Can these phenomena be considered aside from any\nconnection with, or form of, superstition?\n\n_Answer_. I think that mistake, emotion, nervousness, hysteria,\ndreams, love of the wonderful, dishonesty, ignorance, grief and\nthe longing for immortality--the desire to meet the loved and lost,\nthe horror of endless death--account for these phenomena. People\noften mistake their dreams for realities--often think their thoughts\nhave \"happened.\" They live in a mental mist, a mirage. The boundary\nbetween the actual and the imagined becomes faint, wavering and\nobscure. They mistake clouds for mountains. The real and the\nunreal mix and mingle until the impossible becomes common, and the\nnatural absurd.\n\n_Question_. Do you believe that any sane man ever had a vision?\n\n_Answer_. Of course, the sane and insane have visions, dreams.\nI do not believe that any man, sane or insane, was ever visited by\nan angel or spirit, or ever received any information from the dead.\n\n_Question_. Setting aside from consideration the so-called physical\nmanifestations of the mediums, has Spiritualism offered any proof\nof the immortality of the soul?\n\n_Answer_. Of course Spiritualism offers what it calls proof of\nimmortality. That is its principal business. Thousands and\nthousands of good, honest, intelligent people think the proof\nsufficient. They receive what they believe to be messages from\nthe departed, and now and then the spirits assume their old forms\n--including garments--and pass through walls and doors as light\npasses through glass. Do these things really happen? If the\nspirits of the dead do return, then the fact of another life is\nestablished. It all depends on the evidence. Our senses are easily\ndeceived, and some people have more confidence in their reason than\nin their senses.\n\n_Question_. Do you not believe that such a man as Robert Dale Owen\nwas sincere? What was the real state of mind of the author of\n\"Footfalls on the Boundaries of Another World\"?\n\n_Answer_. Without the slightest doubt, Robert Dale Owen was sincere.\nHe was one of the best of men. His father labored all his life\nfor the good of others. Robert Owen, the father, had a debate, in\nCincinnati, with the Rev. Alexander Campbell, the founder of the\nCampbellite Church. Campbell was no match for Owen, and yet the\naudience was almost unanimously against Owen.\n\nRobert Dale Owen was an intelligent, thoughtful, honest man. He\nwas deceived by several mediums, but remained a believer. He wanted\nSpiritualism to be true. He hungered and thirsted for another\nlife. He explained everything that was mysterious or curious by\nassuming the interference of spirits. He was a good man, but a\npoor investigator. He thought that people were all honest.\n\n_Question_. What do you understand the Spiritualist means when he\nclaims that the soul goes to the \"Summer land,\" and there continues\nto work and evolute to higher planes?\n\n_Answer_. No one pretends to know where \"heaven\" is. The celestial\nrealm is the blessed somewhere in the unknown nowhere. So far as\nI know, the \"Summer land\" has no metes and bounds, and no one\npretends to know exactly or inexactly where it is. After all, the\n\"Summer land\" is a hope--a wish. Spiritualists believe that a soul\nleaving this world passes into another, or into another state, and\ncontinues to grow in intelligence and virtue, if it so desires.\n\nSpiritualists claim to prove that there is another life. Christians\nbelieve this, but their witnesses have been dead for many centuries.\nThey take the \"hearsay\" of legend and ancient gossip; but Spiritualists\nclaim to have living witnesses; witnesses that can talk, make music;\nthat can take to themselves bodies and shake hands with the people\nthey knew before they passed to the \"other shore.\"\n\n_Question_. Has Spiritualism, through its mediums, ever told the\nworld anything useful, or added to the store of the world's knowledge,\nor relieved its burdens?\n\n_Answer_. I do not know that any medium has added to the useful\nknowledge of the world, unless mediums have given evidence of\nanother life. Mediums have told us nothing about astronomy, geology\nor history, have made no discoveries, no inventions, and have\nenriched no art. The same may be said of every religion.\n\nAll the orthodox churches believe in Spiritualism. Every now and\nthen the Virgin appears to some peasant, and in the old days the\ndarkness was filled with evil spirits. Christ was a Spiritualist,\nand his principal business was the casting out of devils. All of\nhis disciples, all of the church fathers, all of the saints were\nbelievers in Spiritualism of the lowest and most ignorant type.\nDuring the Middle Ages people changed themselves, with the aid of\nspirits, into animals. They became wolves, dogs, cats and donkeys.\nIn those day all the witches and wizards were mediums. So animals\nwere sometimes taken possession of by spirits, the same as Balaam's\ndonkey and Christ's swine. Nothing was too absurd for the\nChristians.\n\n_Question_. Has not Spiritualism added to the world's stock of\nhope? And in what way has not Spiritualism done good?\n\n_Answer_. The mother holding in her arms her dead child, believing\nthat the babe has simply passed to another life, does not weep as\nbitterly as though she thought that death was the eternal end. A\nbelief in Spiritualism must be a consolation. You see, the\nSpiritualists do not believe in eternal pain, and consequently a\nbelief in immortality does not fill their hearts with fear.\n\nChristianity makes eternal life an infinite horror, and casts the\nglare of hell on almost every grave.\n\nThe Spiritualists appear to be happy in their belief. I have never\nknown a happy orthodox Christian.\n\nIt is natural to shun death, natural to desire eternal life. With\nall my heart I hope for everlasting life and joy--a life without\nfailures, without crimes and tears.\n\nIf immortality could be established, the river of life would overflow\nwith happiness. The faces of prisoners, of slaves, of the deserted,\nof the diseased and starving would be radiant with smiles, and the\ndull eyes of despair would glow with light.\n\nIf it could be established.\n\nLet us hope.\n\n--_The Journal_, New York, July 26, 1896.\n\n\nA LITTLE OF EVERYTHING.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of the position taken by the\nUnited States in the Venezuelan dispute? How should the dispute\nbe settled?\n\n_Answer_. I do not think that we have any interest in the dispute\nbetween Venezuela and England. It was and is none of our business.\nThe Monroe doctrine was not and is not in any way involved. Mr.\nCleveland made a mistake and so did Congress.\n\n_Question_. What should be the attitude of the church toward the\nstage?\n\n_Answer_. It should be, what it always has been, against it. If\nthe orthodox churches are right, then the stage is wrong. The\nstage makes people forget hell; and this puts their souls in peril.\nThere will be forever a conflict between Shakespeare and the Bible.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of the new woman?\n\n_Answer_. I like her.\n\n_Question_. Where rests the responsibility for the Armenian\natrocities?\n\n_Answer_. Religion is the cause of the hatred and bloodshed.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of international marriages, as\nbetween titled foreigners and American heiresses?\n\n_Answer_. My opinion is the same as is entertained by the American\ngirl after the marriages. It is a great mistake.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of England's Poet Laureate, Alfred\nAustin?\n\n_Answer_. I have only read a few of his lines and they were not\npoetic. The office of Poet Laureate should be abolished. Men\ncannot write poems to order as they could deliver cabbages or beer.\nBy poems I do not mean jingles of words. I mean great thoughts\nclothed in splendor.\n\n_Question_. What is your estimate of Susan B. Anthony?\n\n_Answer_. Miss Anthony is one of the most remarkable women in the\nworld. She has the enthusiasm of youth and spring, the courage\nand sincerity of a martyr. She is as reliable as the attraction\nof gravitation. She is absolutely true to her conviction,\nintellectually honest, logical, candid and infinitely persistent.\nNo human being has done more for women than Miss Anthony. She has\nwon the respect and admiration of the best people on the earth.\nAnd so I say: Good luck and long life to Susan B. Anthony.\n\n_Question_. Which did more for his country, George Washington or\nAbraham Lincoln?\n\n_Answer_. In my judgment, Lincoln was the greatest man ever\nPresident. I put him above Washington and Jefferson. He had the\ngenius of goodness; and he was one of the wisest and shrewdest of\nmen. Lincoln towers above them all.\n\n_Question_. What gave rise to the report that you had been converted\n--did you go to church somewhere?\n\n_Answer_. I visited the \"People's Church\" in Kalamazoo, Michigan.\nThis church has no creed. The object is to make people happy in\nthis world. Miss Bartlett is the pastor. She is a remarkable\nwoman and is devoting her life to good work. I liked her church\nand said so. This is all.\n\n_Question_. Are there not some human natures so morally weak or\ndiseased that they cannot keep from sin without the aid of some\nsort of religion?\n\n_Answer_. I do not believe that the orthodox religion helps anybody\nto be just, generous or honest. Superstition is not the soil in\nwhich goodness grows. Falsehood is poor medicine.\n\n_Question_. Would you consent to live in any but a Christian\ncommunity? If you would, please name one.\n\n_Answer_. I would not live in a community where all were orthodox\nChristians. I would rather dwell in Central Africa. If I could\nhave my choice I would rather live among people who were free, who\nsought for truth and lived according to reason. Sometime there\nwill be such a community.\n\n_Question_. Is the noun \"United States\" singular or plural, as\nyou use English?\n\n_Answer_. I use it in the singular.\n\n_Question_. Have you read Nordau's \"Degeneracy\"? If so, what do\nyou think of it?\n\n_Answer_. I think it is substantially insane.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of Bishop Doane's advocacy of free\nrum as a solution of the liquor problem?\n\n_Answer_. I am a believer in liberty. All the temperance legislation,\nall the temperance societies, all the agitation, all these things\nhave done no good.\n\n_Question_. Do you agree with Mr. Carnegie that a college education\nis of little or no practical value to a man?\n\n_Answer_. A man must have education. It makes no difference where\nor how he gets it. To study the dead languages is time wasted so\nfar as success in business is concerned. Most of the colleges in\nthis country are poor because controlled by theologians.\n\n_Question_. What suggestion would you make for the improvement of\nthe newspapers of this country?\n\n_Answer_. Every article in a newspaper should be signed by the\nwriter. And all writers should do their best to tell the exact\nfacts.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of Niagara Falls?\n\n_Answer_. It is a dangerous place. Those great rushing waters--\nthere is nothing attractive to me in them. There is so much noise;\nso much tumult. It is simply a mighty force of nature--one of\nthose tremendous powers that is to be feared for its danger. What\nI like in nature is a cultivated field, where men can work in the\nfree open air, where there is quiet and repose--no turmoil, no\nstrife, no tumult, no fearful roar or struggle for mastery. I do\nnot like the crowded, stuffy workshop, where life is slavery and\ndrudgery. Give me the calm, cultivated land of waving grain, of\nflowers, of happiness.\n\n_Question_. What is worse than death?\n\n_Answer_. Oh, a great many things. To be dishonored. To be\nworthless. To feel that you are a failure. To be insane. To be\nconstantly afraid of the future. To lose the ones you love.\n\n--_The Herald_, Rochester, New York, February 25, 1896.\n\n\nIS LIFE WORTH LIVING--CHRISTIAN SCIENCE AND POLITICS.\n\n_Question_. With all your experiences, the trials, the responsibilities,\nthe disappointments, the heartburnings, Colonel, is life worth\nliving?\n\n_Answer_. Well, I can only answer for myself. I like to be alive,\nto breathe the air, to look at the landscape, the clouds and stars,\nto repeat old poems, to look at pictures and statues, to hear music,\nthe voices of the ones I love. I like to talk with my wife, my\ngirls, my grandchildren. I like to sleep and to dream. Yes, you\ncan say that life, to me, is worth living.\n\n_Question_. Colonel, did you ever kill any game?\n\n_Answer_. When I was a boy I killed two ducks, and it hurt me as\nmuch as anything I ever did. No, I would not kill any living\ncreature. I am sometimes tempted to kill a mosquito on my hand,\nbut I stop and think what a wonderful construction it has, and shoo\nit away.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of political parties, Colonel?\n\n_Answer_. In a country where the sovereignty is divided among the\npeople, that is to say, among the men, in order to accomplish\nanything, many must unite, and I believe in joining the party that\nis going the nearest your way. I do not believe in being the slave\nor serf or servant of a party. Go with it if it is going your\nroad, and when the road forks, take the one that leads to the place\nyou wish to visit, no matter whether the party goes that way or\nnot. I do not believe in belonging to a party or being the property\nof any organization. I do not believe in giving a mortgage on\nyourself or a deed of trust for any purpose whatever. It is better\nto be free and vote wrong than to be a slave and vote right. I\nbelieve in taking the chances. At the same time, as long as a\nparty is going my way, I believe in placing that party above\nparticular persons, and if that party nominates a man that I despise,\nI will vote for him if he is going my way. I would rather have a\nbad man belonging to my party in place, than a good man belonging\nto the other, provided my man believes in my principles, and to\nthat extent I believe in party loyalty.\n\nNeither do I join in the general hue and cry against bosses. There\nhas always got to be a leader, even in a flock of wild geese. If\nanything is to be accomplished, no matter what, somebody takes the\nlead and the others allow him to go on. In that way political\nbosses are made, and when you hear a man howling against bosses at\nthe top of his lungs, distending his cheeks to the bursting point,\nyou may know that he has ambition to become a boss.\n\nI do not belong to the Republican party, but I have been going with\nit, and when it goes wrong I shall quit, unless the other is worse.\nThere is no office, no place, that I want, and as it does not cost\nanything to be right, I think it better to be that way.\n\n_Question_. What is your idea of Christian Science?\n\n_Answer_. I think it is superstition, pure and unadulterated. I\nthink that soda will cure a sour stomach better than thinking. In\nmy judgment, quinine is a better tonic than meditation. Of course\ncheerfulness is good and depression bad, but if you can absolutely\ncontrol the body and all its functions by thought, what is the use\nof buying coal? Let the mercury go down and keep yourself hot by\nthinking. What is the use of wasting money for food? Fill your\nstomach with think. According to these Christian Science people\nall that really exists is an illusion, and the only realities are\nthe things that do not exist. They are like the old fellow in\nIndia who said that all things were illusions. One day he was\nspeaking to a crowd on his favorite hobby. Just as he said \"all\nis illusion\" a fellow on an elephant rode toward him. The elephant\nraised his trunk as though to strike, thereupon the speaker ran\naway. Then the crowd laughed. In a few moments the speaker\nreturned. The people shouted: \"If all is illusion, what made you\nrun away?\" The speaker replied: \"My poor friends, I said all is\nillusion. I say so still. There was no elephant. I did not run\naway. You did not laugh, and I am not explaining now. All is\nillusion.\"\n\nThat man must have been a Christian Scientist.\n\n--_The Inter-Ocean_, Chicago, November, 1897.\n\n\nVIVISECTION.\n\n_Question_. Why are you so utterly opposed to vivisection?\n\n_Answer_. Because, as it is generally practiced, it is an unspeakable\ncruelty. Because it hardens the hearts and demoralizes those who\ninflict useless and terrible pains on the bound and helpless. If\nthese vivisectionists would give chloroform or ether to the animals\nthey dissect; if they would render them insensible to pain, and\nif, by cutting up these animals, they could learn anything worth\nknowing, no one would seriously object.\n\nThe trouble is that these doctors, these students, these professors,\nthese amateurs, do not give anesthetics. They insist that to render\nthe animal insensible does away with the value of the experiment.\nThey care nothing for the pain they inflict. They are so eager to\nfind some fact that will be of benefit to the human race, that they\nare utterly careless of the agony endured.\n\nNow, what I say is that no decent man, no gentleman, no civilized\nperson, would vivisect an animal without first having rendered\nthat animal insensible to pain. The doctor, the scientist, who\nputs his knives, forceps, chisels and saws into the flesh, bones\nand nerves of an animal without having used an anesthetic, is a\nsavage, a pitiless, heartless monster. When he says he does this\nfor the good of man, because he wishes to do good, he says what is\nnot true. No such man wants to do good; he commits the crime for\nhis own benefit and because he wishes to gratify an insane cruelty\nor to gain a reputation among like savages.\n\nThese scientists now insist that they have done some good. They\ndo not tell exactly what they have done. The claim is general in\nits character--not specific. If they have done good, could they\nnot have done just as much if they had used anesthetics? Good is\nnot the child of cruelty.\n\n_Question_. Do you think that the vivisectionists do their work\nwithout anesthetics? Do they not, as a rule, give something to\ndeaden pain?\n\n_Answer_. Here is what the trouble is. Now and then one uses\nchloroform, but the great majority do not. They claim that it\ninterferes with the value of the experiment, and, as I said before,\nthey object to the expense. Why should they care for what the\nanimals suffer? They inflict the most horrible and useless pain,\nand they try the silliest experiments--experiments of no possible\nuse or advantage.\n\nFor instance: They flay a dog to see how long he can live without\nhis skin. Is this trifling experiment of any importance? Suppose\nthe dog can live a week or a month or a year, what then? What must\nthe real character of the scientific wretch be who would try an\nexperiment like this? Is such a man seeking the good of his fellow-\nmen?\n\nSo, these scientists starve animals until they slowly die; watch\nthem from day to day as life recedes from the extremities, and\nwatch them until the final surrender, to see how long the heart\nwill flutter without food; without water. They keep a diary of\ntheir sufferings, of their whinings and moanings, of their insanity.\nAnd this diary is published and read with joy and eagerness by\nother scientists in like experiments. Of what possible use is it\nto know how long a dog or horse can live without food?\n\nSo, they take animals, dogs and horses, cut through the flesh with\nthe knife, remove some of the back bone with the chisel, then divide\nthe spinal marrow, then touch it with red hot wires for the purpose\nof finding, as they say, the connection of nerves; and the animal,\nthus vivisected, is left to die.\n\nA good man will not voluntarily inflict pain. He will see that\nhis horse has food, if he can procure it, and if he cannot procure\nthe food, he will end the sufferings of the animal in the best and\neasiest way. So, the good man would rather remain in ignorance as\nto how pain is transmitted than to cut open the body of a living\nanimal, divide the marrow and torture the nerves with red hot iron.\nOf what use can it be to take a dog, tie him down and cut out one\nof his kidneys to see if he can live with the other?\n\nThese horrors are perpetrated only by the cruel and the heartless\n--so cruel and so heartless that they are utterly unfit to be\ntrusted with a human life. They innoculate animals with a virus\nof disease; they put poison in their eyes until rottenness destroys\nthe sight; until the poor brutes become insane. They given them\na disease that resembles hydrophobia, that is accompanied by the\nmost frightful convulsions and spasms. They put them in ovens to\nsee what degree of heat it is that kills. They also try the effect\nof cold; they slowly drown them; they poison them with the venom\nof snakes; they force foreign substances into their blood, and, by\ninoculation, into their eyes; and then watch and record their\nagonies; their sufferings.\n\n_Question_. Don't you think that some good has been accomplished,\nsome valuable information obtained, by vivisection?\n\n_Answer_. I don't think any valuable information has been obtained\nby the vivisection of animals without chloroform that could not\nhave been obtained with chloroform. And to answer the question\nbroadly as to whether any good has been accomplished by vivisection,\nI say no.\n\nAccording to the best information that I can obtain, the vivisectors\nhave hindered instead of helped. Lawson Tait, who stands at the\nhead of his profession in England, the best surgeon in Great Britain,\nsays that all this cutting and roasting and freezing and torturing\nof animals has done harm instead of good. He says publicly that\nthe vivisectors have hindered the progress of surgery. He declares\nthat they have not only done no good, but asserts that they have\ndone only harm. The same views according to Doctor Tait, are\nentertained by Bell, Syme and Fergusson.\n\nMany have spoken of Darwin as though he were a vivisector. This\nis not true. All that has been accomplished by these torturers of\ndumb and helpless animals amounts to nothing. We have obtained\nfrom these gentlemen Koch's cure for consumption, Pasteur's factory\nof hydrophobia and Brown-Sequard's elixir of life. These three\nfailures, gigantic, absurd, ludicrous, are the great accomplishment\nof vivisection.\n\nSurgery has advanced, not by the heartless tormentors of animals,\nbut by the use of anesthetics--that is to say, chloroform, ether\nand cocaine. The cruel wretches, the scientific assassins, have\naccomplished nothing. Hundreds of thousands of animals have suffered\nevery pain that nerves can feel, and all for nothing--nothing except\nto harden the heart and to make criminals of men.\n\nThey have not given anesthetics to these animals, but they have\nbeen guilty of the last step in cruelty. They have given curare,\na drug that attacks the centers of motion, that makes it impossible\nfor the animal to move, so that when under its influence, no matter\nwhat the pain may be, the animal lies still. This curare not only\ndestroys the power of motion, but increases the sensitiveness of\nthe nerves. To give this drug and then to dissect the living animal\nis the extreme of cruelty. Beyond this, heartlessness cannot go.\n\n_Question_. Do you know that you have been greatly criticized for\nwhat you have said on this subject?\n\n_Answer_. Yes; I have read many criticisms; but what of that. It\nis impossible for the ingenuity of man to say anything in defence\nof cruelty--of heartlessness. So, it is impossible for the defenders\nof vivisection to show any good that has been accomplished without\nthe use of anesthetics. The chemist ought to be able to determine\nwhat is and what is not poison. There is no need of torturing the\nanimals. So, this giving to animals diseases is of no importance\nto man--not the slightest; and nothing has been discovered in\nbacteriology so far that has been of use or that is of benefit.\n\nPersonally, I admit that all have the right to criticise; and my\nanswer to the critics is, that they do not know the facts; or,\nknowing them, they are interested in preventing a knowledge of\nthese facts coming to the public. Vivisection should be controlled\nby law. No animal should be allowed to be tortured. And to cut\nup a living animal not under the influence of chloroform or ether,\nshould be a penitentiary offence.\n\nA perfect reply to all the critics who insist that great good has\nbeen done is to repeat the three names--Koch, Pasteur and Brown-\nSequard.\n\nThe foundation of civilization is not cruelty; it is justice,\ngenerosity, mercy.\n\n--_Evening Telegram_, New York, September 30, 1893.\n\n\nDIVORCE.\n\n_Question_. The _Herald_ would like to have you give your ideas\non divorce. On last Sunday in your lecture you said a few words\non the subject, but only a few. Do you think the laws governing\ndivorce ought to be changed?\n\n_Answer_. We obtained our ideas about divorce from the Hebrews--\nfrom the New Testament and the church. In the Old Testament woman\nis not considered of much importance. The wife was the property\nof the husband.\n\n\"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ox or his wife.\" In this\ncommandment the wife is put on an equality with other property, so\nunder certain conditions the husband could put away his wife, but\nthe wife could not put away her husband.\n\nIn the New Testament there is little in favor of marriage, and\nreally nothing as to the rights of wives. Christ said nothing in\nfavor of marriage, and never married. So far as I know, none of\nthe apostles had families. St. Paul was opposed to marriage, and\nallowed it only as a choice of evils. In those days it was imagined\nby the Christians that the world was about to be purified by fire,\nand that they would be changed into angels.\n\nThe early Christians were opposed to marriage, and the \"fathers\"\nlooked upon woman as the source of all evil. They did not believe\nin divorces. They thought that if people loved each other better\nthan they did God, and got married, they ought to be held to the\nbargain, no matter what happened.\n\nThese \"fathers\" were, for the most part, ignorant and hateful\nsavages, and had no more idea of right and wrong than wild beasts.\n\nThe church insisted that marriage was a sacrament, and that God,\nin some mysterious way, joined husband and wife in marriage--that\nhe was one of the parties to the contract, and that only death\ncould end it.\n\nOf course, this supernatural view of marriage is perfectly absurd.\nIf there be a God, there certainly have been marriages he did not\napprove, and certain it is that God can have no interest in keeping\nhusbands and wives together who never should have married.\n\nSome of the preachers insist that God instituted marriage in the\nGarden of Eden. We now know that there was no Garden of Eden, and\nthat woman was not made from the first man's rib. Nobody with any\nreal sense believes this now. The institution of marriage was not\nestablished by Jehovah. Neither was it established by Christ, not\nany of his apostles.\n\nIn considering the question of divorce, the supernatural should be\ndiscarded. We should take into consideration only the effect upon\nhuman beings. The gods should be allowed to take care of\nthemselves.\n\nIs it to the interest of a husband and wife to live together after\nlove has perished and when they hate each other? Will this add to\ntheir happiness? Should a woman be compelled to remain the wife\nof a man who hates and abuses her, and whom she loathes? Has\nsociety any interest in forcing women to live with men they hate?\n\nThere is no real marriage without love, and in the marriage state\nthere is no morality without love. A woman who remains the wife\nof a man whom she despises, or does not love, corrupts her soul.\nShe becomes degraded, polluted, and feels that her flesh has been\nsoiled. Under such circumstances a good woman suffers the agonies\nof moral death. It may be said that the woman can leave her husband;\nthat she is not compelled to live in the same house or to occupy\nthe same room. If she has the right to leave, has she the right\nto get a new house? Should a woman be punished for having married?\nWomen do not marry the wrong men on purpose. Thousands of mistakes\nare made--are these mistakes sacred? Must they be preserved to\nplease God?\n\nWhat good can it do God to keep people married who hate each other?\nWhat good can it do the community to keep such people together?\n\n_Question_. Do you consider marriage a contract or a sacrament?\n\n_Answer_. Marriage is the most important contract that human beings\ncan make. No matter whether it is called a contract or a sacrament,\nit remains the same. A true marriage is a natural concord or\nagreement of souls--a harmony in which discord is not even imagined.\nIt is a mingling so perfect that only one seems to exist. All\nother considerations are lost. The present seems eternal. In this\nsupreme moment there is no shadow, or the shadow is as luminous as\nlight.\n\nWhen two beings thus love, thus united, this is the true marriage\nof soul and soul. The idea of contract is lost. Duty and obligation\nare instantly changed into desire and joy, and two lives, like\nuniting streams, flow on as one.\n\nThis is real marriage.\n\nNow, if the man turns out to be a wild beast, if he destroys the\nhappiness of the wife, why should she remain his victim?\n\nIf she wants a divorce, she should have it. The divorce will not\nhurt God or the community. As a matter of fact, it will save a\nlife.\n\nNo man not poisoned by superstition will object to the release of\nan abused wife. In such a case only savages can object to divorce.\nThe man who wants courts and legislatures to force a woman to live\nwith him is a monster.\n\n_Question_. Do you believe that the divorced should be allowed to\nmarry again?\n\n_Answer_. Certainly. Has the woman whose rights have been outraged\nno right to build another home? Must this woman, full of kindness,\naffection and health, be chained until death releases her? Is\nthere no future for her? Must she be an outcast forever? Can she\nnever sit by her own hearth, with the arms of her children about\nher neck, and by her side a husband who loves and protects her?\n\nThere are no two sides to this question.\n\nAll human beings should be allowed to correct their mistakes. If\nthe wife has flagrantly violated the contract of marriage, the\nhusband should be given a divorce. If the wife wants a divorce,\nif she loathes her husband, if she no longer loves him, then the\ndivorce should be granted.\n\nIt is immoral for a woman to live as the wife of a man whom she\nabhors. The home should be pure. Children should be well-born.\nTheir parents should love one another.\n\nMarriages are made by men and women, not by society, not by the\nstate, not by the church, not by the gods. Nothing is moral, that\ndoes not tend to the well-being of sentient beings.\n\nThe good home is the unit of good government. The hearthstone is\nthe corner-stone of civilization. Society is not interested in\nthe preservation of hateful homes. It is not to the interest of\nsociety that good women should be enslaved or that they should\nbecome mothers by husbands whom they hate.\n\nMost of the laws about divorce are absurd or cruel, and ought to\nbe repealed.\n\n--_The Herald_, New York, February, 1897.\n\n\nMUSIC, NEWSPAPERS, LYNCHING AND ARBITRATION.\n\n_Question_. How do you enjoy staying in Chicago?\n\n_Answer_. Well, I am about as happy as a man can be when he is\naway from home. I was at the opera last night. I am always happy\nwhen I hear the music of Wagner interpreted by such a genius as\nSeidl. I do not believe there is a man in the world who has in\nhis brain and heart more of the real spirit of Wagner than Anton\nSeidl. He knows how to lead, how to phrase and shade, how to rush\nand how to linger, and to express every passion and every mood. So\nI was happy last night to hear him. Then I heard Edouard de Reszke,\nthe best of bass singers, with tones of a great organ, and others\nsoft and liquid, and Jean de Reszke, a great tenor, who sings the\n\"Swan Song\" as though inspired; and I liked Bispham, but hated his\npart. He is a great singer; so is Mme. Litvinne.\n\nSo, I can say that I am enjoying Chicago. In fact, I always did.\nI was here when the town was small, not much more than huts and\nhogs, lumber and mud; and now it is one of the greatest of cities.\nIt makes me happy just to think of the difference. I was born the\nyear Chicago was incorporated. In my time matches were invented.\nSteam navigation became really useful. The telegraph was invented.\nGas was discovered and applied to practical uses, and electricity\nwas made known in its practical workings to mankind. Thus, it is\nseen the world is progressing; men are becoming civilized. But\nthe process of civilization even now is slow. In one or two thousand\nyears we may hope to see a vast improvement in man's condition.\nWe may expect to have the employer so far civilized that he will\nnot try to make money for money's sake, but in order that he may\napply it to good uses, to the amelioration of his fellow-man's\ncondition. We may also expect the see the workingman, the employee,\nso far civilized that he will know it is impossible and undesirable\nfor him to attempt to fix the wages paid by his employer. We may\nin a thousand or more years reasonably expect that the employee\nwill be so far civilized and become sufficiently sensible to know\nthat strikes and threats and mob violence can never improve his\ncondition. Altruism is nonsense, craziness.\n\n_Question_. Is Chicago as liberal, intellectually, as New York?\n\n_Answer_. I think so. Of course you will find thousands of free,\nthoughtful people in New York--people who think and want others to\ndo the same. So, there are thousands of respectable people who\nare centuries behind the age. In other words, you will find all\nkinds. I presume the same is true of Chicago. I find many liberal\npeople here, and some not quite so liberal.\n\nSome of the papers here seem to be edited by real pious men. On\nlast Tuesday the _Times-Herald_ asked pardon of its readers for\nhaving given a report of my lecture. That editor must be pious.\nIn the same paper, columns were given to the prospective prize-\nfight at Carson City. All the news about the good Corbett and the\northodox Fitzsimmons--about the training of the gentlemen who are\ngoing to attack each others' jugulars and noses; who are expected\nto break jaws, blacken eyes, and peel foreheads in a few days, to\nsettle the question of which can bear the most pounding. In this\ngreat contest and in all its vulgar details, the readers of the\n_Times-Herald_ are believed by the editor of that religious daily\nto take great interest.\n\nThe editor did not ask the pardon of his readers for giving so much\nspace to the nose-smashing sport. No! He knew that would fill\ntheir souls with delight, and, so knowing, he reached the correct\nconclusion that such people would not enjoy anything I had said.\nThe editor did a wise thing and catered to a large majority of his\nreaders. I do not think that we have as religious a daily paper\nin New York as the _Times-Herald_. So the editor of the _Times-\nHerald_ took the ground that men with little learning, in youth,\nmight be agnostic, but as they grew sensible they would become\northodox. When he wrote that he was probably thinking of Humboldt\nand Darwin, of Huxley and Haeckel. May be Herbert Spencer was in\nhis mind, but I think that he must have been thinking of a few boys\nin his native village.\n\n_Question_. What do you think about prize-fighting anyway?\n\n_Answer_. Well, I think that prize-fighting is worse, if possible,\nthan revival meetings. Next to fighting to kill, as they did in\nthe old Roman days, I think the modern prize-fight is the most\ndisgusting and degrading of exhibitions. All fights, whether cock-\nfights, bull-fights or pugilistic encounters, are practiced and\nenjoyed only by savages. No matter what office they hold, what\nwealth or education they have, they are simply savages. Under no\npossible circumstances would I witness a prize-fight or a bull-\nfight or a dog-fight. The Marquis of Queensbury was once at my\nhouse, and I found his opinions were the same as mine. Everyone\nthinks that he had something to do with the sport of prize-fighting,\nbut he did not, except to make some rules once for a college boxing\ncontest. He told me that he never saw but one prize-fight in his\nlife, and that it made him sick.\n\n_Question_. How are you on the arbitration treaty?\n\n_Answer_. I am for it with all my heart. I have read it, and read\nit with care, and to me it seems absolutely fair. England and\nAmerica should set an example to the world. The English-speaking\npeople have reason enough and sense enough, I hope, to settle their\ndifferences by argument--by reason. Let us get the wild beast out\nof us. Two great nations like England and America appealing to\nforce, arguing with shot and shell! What is education worth? Is\nwhat we call civilization a sham? Yes, I believe in peace, in\narbitration, in settling disputes like reasonable, human beings.\nAll that war can do is to determine who is the stronger. It throws\nno light on any question, addresses no argument. There is a point\nto a bayonet, but no logic. After the war is over the victory does\nnot tell which nation was right. Civilized men take their differences\nto courts or arbitrators. Civilized nations should do the same.\nThere ought to be an international court.\n\nLet every man do all he can to prevent war--to prevent the waste,\nthe cruelties, the horrors that follow every flag on every field\nof battle. It is time that man was human--time that the beast was\nout of his heart.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of McKinley's inaugural?\n\n_Answer_. It is good, honest, clear, patriotic and sensible.\nThere is one thing in it that touched me; I agree with him that\nlynching has to be stopped. You see that now we are citizens of\nthe United States, not simply of the State in which we happen to\nlive. I take the ground that it is the business of the United\nStates to protect its citizens, not only when they are in some\nother country, but when they are at home. The United States cannot\ndischarge this obligation by allowing the States to do as they\nplease. Where citizens are being lynched the Government should\ninterfere. If the Governor of some barbarian State says that he\ncannot protect the lives of citizens, then the United States should,\nif it took the entire Army and Navy.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of charity organizations?\n\n_Answer_. I think that the people who support them are good and\ngenerous--splendid--but I have a poor opinion of the people in\ncharge. As a rule, I think they are cold, impudent and heartless.\nThere is too much circumlocution, or too many details and too little\nhumanity. The Jews are exceedingly charitable. I think that in\nNew York the men who are doing the most for their fellow-men are\nJews. Nathan Strauss is trying to feed the hungry, warm the cold,\nand clothe the naked. For the most part, organized charities are,\nI think, failures. A real charity has to be in the control of a\ngood man, a real sympathetic, a sensible man, one who helps others\nto help themselves. Let a hungry man go to an organized society\nand it requires several days to satisfy the officers that the man\nis hungry. Meanwhile he will probably starve to death.\n\n_Question_. Do you believe in free text-books in the public\nschools?\n\n_Answer_. I do not care about the text-book question. But I am\nin favor of the public school. Nothing should be taught that\nsomebody does not know. No superstitions--nothing but science.\n\n_Question_. There has been a good deal said lately about your\nsuicide theology, Colonel. Do you still believe that suicide is\njustifiable?\n\n_Answer_. Certainly. When a man is useless to himself and to\nothers he has a right to determine what he will do about living.\nThe only thing to be considered is a man's obligation to his fellow-\nbeings and to himself. I don't take into consideration any\nsupernatural nonsense. If God wants a man to stay here he ought\nto make it more comfortable for him.\n\n_Question_. Since you expounded your justification of suicide,\nColonel, I believe you have had some cases of suicide laid at your\ndoor?\n\n_Answer_. Oh, yes. Every suicide that has happened since that\ntime has been charged to me. I don't know how the people account\nfor the suicides before my time. I have not yet heard of my being\ncharged with the death of Cato, but that may yet come to pass. I\nwas reading the other day that the rate of suicide in Germany is\nincreasing. I suppose my article has been translated into German.\n\n_Question_. How about lying, Colonel? Is it ever right to lie?\n\n_Answer_. Of course, sometimes. In war when a man is captured by\nthe enemy he ought to lie to them to mislead them. What we call\nstrategy is nothing more than lies. For the accomplishment of a\ngood end, for instance, the saving of a woman's reputation, it is\nmany times perfectly right to lie. As a rule, people ought to tell\nthe truth. If it is right to kill a man to save your own life it\ncertainly ought to be right to fool him for the same purpose. I\nwould rather be deceived than killed, wouldn't you?\n\n--_The Inter-Ocean_, Chicago, Illinois, March, 1897.\n\n\nA VISIT TO SHAW'S GARDEN.\n\n_Question_. I was told that you came to St. Louis on your wedding\ntrip some thirty years ago and went to Shaw's Garden?\n\n_Answer_. Yes; we were married on the 13th of February, 1862. We\nwere here in St. Louis, and we did visit Shaw's Garden, and we\nthought it perfectly beautiful. Afterward we visited the Kew\nGardens in London, but our remembrance of Shaw's left Kew in the\nshade.\n\nOf course, I have been in St. Louis many times, my first visit\nbeing, I think, in 1854. I have always liked the town. I was\nacquainted at one time with a great many of your old citizens.\nMost of them have died, and I know but few of the present generation.\nI used to stop at the old Planter's House, and I was there quite\noften during the war. In those days I saw Hackett as Falstaff,\nthe best Falstaff that ever lived. Ben de Bar was here then, and\nthe Maddern sisters, and now the daughter of one of the sisters,\nMinnie Maddern Fiske, is one of the greatest actresses in the world.\nShe has made a wonderful hit in New York this season. And so the\nebb and flow of life goes on--the old pass and the young arrive.\n\n\"Death and progress!\" It may be that death is, after all, a great\nblessing. Maybe it gives zest and flavor to life, ardor and flame\nto love. At the same time I say, \"long life\" to all my friends.\n\nI want to live--I get great happiness out of life. I enjoy the\ncompany of my friends. I enjoy seeing the faces of the ones I\nlove. I enjoy art and music. I love Shakespeare and Burns; love\nto hear the music of Wagner; love to see a good play. I take\npleasure in eating and sleeping. The fact is, I like to breathe.\n\nI want to get all the happiness out of life that I can. I want to\nsuck the orange dry, so that when death comes nothing but the\npeelings will be left, and so I say: \"Long life!\"\n\n--_The Republic_, St. Louis, April 11, 1897.\n\n\nTHE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY DISCUSSION AND THE WHIPPING-POST.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion as to the action of the President\non the Venezuelan matter?\n\n_Answer_. In my judgment, the President acted in haste and without\nthought. It may be said that it would have been well enough for\nhim to have laid the correspondence before Congress and asked for\nan appropriation for a commission to ascertain the facts, to the\nend that our Government might intelligently act. There was no\npropriety in going further than that. To almost declare war before\nthe facts were known was a blunder--almost a crime. For my part,\nI do not think the Monroe doctrine has anything to do with the\ncase. Mr. Olney reasons badly, and it is only by a perversion of\nfacts, and an exaggeration of facts, and by calling in question\nthe motives of England that it is possible to conclude that the\nMonroe doctrine has or can have anything to do with the controversy.\nThe President went out of his way to find a cause of quarrel.\nNobody doubts the courage of the American people, and we for that\nreason can afford to be sensible and prudent. Valor and discretion\nshould go together. Nobody doubts the courage of England.\n\nAmerica and England are the leading nations, and in their keeping,\nto a great extent, is the glory of the future. They should be at\npeace. Should a difference arise it should be settled without\nrecourse to war.\n\nFighting settles nothing but the relative strength. No light is\nthrown on the cause of the conflict--on the question or fact that\ncaused the war.\n\n_Question_. Do you think that there is any danger of war?\n\n_Answer_. If the members of Congress really represent the people,\nthen there is danger. But I do not believe the people will really\nwant to fight about a few square miles of malarial territory in\nVenezuela--something in which they have no earthly or heavenly\ninterest. The people do not wish to fight for fight's sake. When\nthey understand the question they will regard the administration\nas almost insane.\n\nThe message has already cost us more than the War of 1812 or the\nMexican war, or both. Stocks and bonds have decreased in value\nseveral hundred millions, and the end is not yet. It may be that\nit will, on account of the panic, be impossible for the Government\nto maintain the gold standard--the reserve. Then gold would command\na premium, the Government would be unable to redeem the greenbacks,\nand the result would be financial chaos, and all this the result\nof Mr. Cleveland's curiosity about a boundary line between two\ncountries, in neither of which we have any interest, and this\ncuriosity has already cost us more than both countries, including\nthe boundary line, are worth.\n\nThe President made a great mistake. So did the House and Senate,\nand the poor people have paid a part of the cost.\n\n_Question_. What is your opinion of the Gerry Whipping Post bill?\n\n_Answer_. I see that it has passed the Senate, and yet I think it\nis a disgrace to the State. How the Senators can go back to torture,\nto the Dark Ages, to the custom of savagery, is beyond belief. I\nhope that the House is nearer civilized, and that the infamous bill\nwill be defeated. If, however, the bill should pass, then I hope\nGovernor Morton will veto it.\n\nNothing is more disgusting, more degrading, than the whipping-post.\nIt degrades the whipped and the whipper. It degrades all who\nwitness the flogging. What kind of a person will do the whipping?\nMen who would apply the lash to the naked backs of criminals would\nhave to be as low as the criminals, and probably a little lower.\n\nThe shadow of the whipping-post does not fall on any civilized\ncountry, and never will. The next thing we know Mr. Gerry will\nprobably introduce some bill to brand criminals on the forehead or\ncut off their ears and slit their noses. This is in the same line,\nand is born of the same hellish spirit. There is no reforming\npower in torture, in bruising and mangling the flesh.\n\nIf the bill becomes a law, I hope it will provide that the lash\nshall be applied by Mr. Gerry and his successors in office. Let\nthese pretended enemies of cruelty enjoy themselves. If the bill\npasses, I presume Mr. Gerry could get a supply of knouts from\nRussia, as that country has just abolished the whipping-post.\n\n--_The Journal_, New York, December 24, 1895.\n\n\nCOLONEL SHEPARD'S STAGE HORSES.*\n\n[* One of Colonel Shepard's equine wrecks was picked up on Fifth\navenue yesterday by the Prevention of Cruelty Society, and was\nlaid up for repairs. The horse was about twenty-eight years old,\nbadly foundered, and its leg was cut and bleeding. It was the leader\nof three that had been hauling a Fifth avenue stage, and, according\nto the Society's agents, was in about as bad a condition as a horse\ncould be and keep on his feet. The other two horses were little\nbetter, neither of them being fit to drive.\n\nColonel Shepard's scrawny nags have long been an eyesore to Colonel\nRobert G. Ingersoll, who is compelled to see them from his windows\nat number 400 Fifth avenue. He said last night: ]\n\nIt might not be in good taste for me to say anything about Colonel\nShepard's horses. He might think me prejudiced. But I am satisfied\nhorses cannot live on faith or on the substance of things hoped\nfor. It is far better for the horse, to feed him without praying,\nthan to pray without feeding him. It is better to be kind even to\nanimals, than to quote Scripture in small capitals. Now, I am not\nsaying anything against Colonel Shepard. I do not know how he\nfeeds his horses. If he is as good and kind as he is pious, then\nI have nothing to say. Maybe he does not allow the horses to break\nthe Sabbath by eating. They are so slow that they make one think\nof a fast. They put me in mind of the Garden of Eden--the rib\nstory. When I watch them on the avenue I, too, fall to quoting\nScripture, and say, \"Can these dry bones live?\" Still, I have a\ndelicacy on this subject; I hate to think about it, and I think\nthe horses feel the same way.\n\n--_Morning Advertiser_, New York, January 21, 1892.\n\n\nA REPLY TO THE REV. L. A. BANKS.\n\n_Question_. Have you read the remarks made about you by the Rev.\nMr. Banks, and what do you think of what he said?\n\n_Answer_. The reverend gentleman pays me a great compliment by\ncomparing me to a circus. Everybody enjoys the circus. They love\nto see the acrobats, the walkers on the tight rope, the beautiful\ngirls on the horses, and they laugh at the wit of the clowns. They\nare delighted with the jugglers, with the music of the band. They\ndrink the lemonade, eat the colored popcorn and laugh until they\nnearly roll off their seats. Now the circus has a few animals so\nthat Christians can have an excuse for going. Think of the joy\nthe circus gives to the boys and girls. They look at the show\nbills, see the men and women flying through the air, bursting\nthrough paper hoops, the elephants standing on their heads, and\nthe clowns, in curious clothes, with hands on their knees and open\nmouths, supposed to be filled with laughter.\n\nAll the boys and girls for many miles around know the blessed day.\nThey save their money, obey their parents, and when the circus\ncomes they are on hand. They see the procession and then they see\nthe show. They are all happy. No sermon ever pleased them as\nmuch, and in comparison even the Sunday school is tame and dull.\n\nTo feel that I have given as much joy as the circus fills me with\npleasure. What chance would the Rev. Dr. Banks stand against a\ncircus?\n\nThe reverend gentleman has done me a great honor, and I tender him\nmy sincere thanks.\n\n_Question_. Dr. Banks says that you write only one lecture a year,\nwhile preachers write a brand new one every week--that if you did\nthat people would tire of you. What have you to say to that?\n\n_Answer_. It may be that great artists paint only one picture a\nyear, and it may be that sign painters can do several jobs a day.\nStill, I would not say that the sign painters were superior to the\nartists. There is quite a difference between a sculptor and a\nstone-cutter.\n\nThere are thousands of preachers and thousands and thousands of\nsermons preached every year. Has any orthodox minister in the year\n1898 given just one paragraph to literature? Has any orthodox\npreacher uttered one great thought, clothed in perfect English that\nthrilled the hearers like music--one great strophe that became one\nof the treasures of memory?\n\nI will make the question a little clearer. Has any orthodox\npreacher, or any preacher in an orthodox pulpit uttered a paragraph\nof what may be called sculptured speech since Henry Ward Beecher\ndied? I do not wonder that the sermons are poor. Their doctrines\nhave been discussed for centuries. There is little chance for\noriginality; they not only thresh old straw, but the thresh straw\nthat has been threshed a million times--straw in which there has\nnot been a grain of wheat for hundreds of years. No wonder that\nthey have nervous prostration. No wonder that they need vacations,\nand no wonder that their congregations enjoy the vacations as keenly\nas the ministers themselves. Better deliver a real good address\nfifty-two times than fifty-two poor ones--just for the sake of\nvariety.\n\n_Question_. Dr. Banks says that the tendency at present is not\ntoward Agnosticism, but toward Christianity. What is your opinion?\n\n_Answer_. When I was a boy \"Infidels\" were very rare. A man who\ndenied the inspiration of the Bible was regarded as a monster.\nNow there are in this country millions who regard the Bible as the\nwork of ignorant and superstitious men. A few years ago the Bible\nwas the standard. All scientific theories were tested by the Bible.\nNow science is the standard and the Bible is tested by that.\n\nDr. Banks did not mention the names of the great scientists who\nare or were Christians, but he probably thought of Laplace, Humboldt,\nHaeckel, Huxley, Spencer, Tyndall, Darwin, Helmholtz and Draper.\nWhen he spoke of Christian statesmen he likely thought of Jefferson,\nFranklin, Washington, Paine and Lincoln--or he may have thought of\nPierce, Fillmore and Buchanan.\n\nBut, after all, there is no argument in names. A man is not\nnecessarily great because he holds office or wears a crown or talks\nin a pulpit. Facts, reasons, are better than names. But it seems\nto me that nothing can be plainer than that the church is losing\nground--that the people are discarding the creeds and that superstition\nhas passed the zenith of its power.\n\n_Question_. Dr. Banks says that Christ did not mention the Western\nHemisphere because God does nothing for men that they can do for\nthemselves. What have you to say?\n\n_Answer_. Christ said nothing about the Western Hemisphere because\nhe did not know that it existed. He did not know the shape of the\nearth. He was not a scientist--never even hinted at any science--\nnever told anybody to investigate--to think. His idea was that\nthis life should be spent in preparing for the next. For all the\nevils of this life, and the next, faith was his remedy.\n\nI see from the report in the paper that Dr. Banks, after making\nthe remarks about me preached a sermon on \"Herod the Villain in\nthe Drama of Christ.\" Who made Herod? Dr. Banks will answer that\nGod made him. Did God know what Herod would do? Yes. Did he know\nthat he would cause the children to be slaughtered in his vain\nefforts to kill the infant Christ? Yes. Dr. Banks will say that\nGod is not responsible for Herod because he gave Herod freedom.\nDid God know how Herod would use his freedom? Did he know that he\nwould become the villain in the drama of Christ? Yes. Who, then,\nis really responsible for the acts of Herod?\n\nIf I could change a stone into a human being, and if I could give\nthis being freedom of will, and if I knew that if I made him he\nwould murder a man, and if with that knowledge I made him, and he\ndid commit a murder, who would be the real murderer?\n\nWill Dr. Banks in his fifty-two sermons of next year show that his\nGod is not responsible for the crimes of Herod?\n\nNo doubt Dr. Banks is a good man, and no doubt he thinks that\nliberty of thought leads to hell, and honestly believes that all\ndoubt comes from the Devil. I do not blame him. He thinks as he\nmust. He is a product of conditions.\n\nHe ought to be my friend because I am doing the best I can to\ncivilize his congregation.\n\n--_The Plain Dealer_, Cleveland, Ohio, 1898.\n\n\nCUBA--ZOLA AND THEOSOPHY.\n\n_Question_. What do you think, Colonel, of the Cuban question?\n\n_Answer_. What I know about this question is known by all. I\nsuppose that the President has information that I know nothing\nabout. Of course, all my sympathies are with the Cubans. They\nare making a desperate--an heroic struggle for their freedom. For\nmany years they have been robbed and trampled under foot. Spain\nis, and always has been, a terrible master--heartless and infamous.\nThere is no language with which to tell what Cuba has suffered.\nIn my judgment, this country should assist the Cubans. We ought\nto acknowledge the independence of that island, and we ought to\nfeed the starving victims of Spain. For years we have been helping\nSpain. Cleveland did all he could to prevent the Cubans from\ngetting arms and men. This was a criminal mistake--a mistake that\neven Spain did not appreciate. All this should instantly be\nreversed, and we should give aid to Cuba. The war that Spain is\nwaging shocks every civilized man. Spain has always been the same.\nIn Holland, in Peru, in Mexico, she was infinitely cruel, and she\nis the same to-day. She loves to torture, to imprison, to degrade,\nto kill. Her idea of perfect happiness is to shed blood. Spain\nis a legacy of the Dark Ages. She belongs to the den, the cave\nperiod. She has no business to exist. She is a blot, a stain on\nthe map of the world. Of course there are some good Spaniards,\nbut they are not in control.\n\nI want Cuba to be free. I want Spain driven from the Western World.\nShe has already starved five hundred thousand Cubans--poor, helpless\nnon-combatants. Among the helpless she is like a hyena--a tiger\namong lambs. This country ought to stop this gigantic crime. We\nshould do this in the name of humanity--for the sake of the starving,\nthe dying.\n\n_Question_. Do you think we are going to have war with Spain?\n\n_Answer_. I do not think there will be war. Unless Spain is\ninsane, she will not attack the United States. She is bankrupt.\nNo nation will assist her. A civilized nation would be ashamed to\ntake her hand, to be her friend. She has not the power to put down\nthe rebellion in Cuba. How then can she hope to conquer this\ncountry? She is full of brag and bluster. Of course she will play\nher hand for all it is worth, so far as talk goes. She will double\nher fists and make motions. She will assume the attitude of war,\nbut she will never fight. Should she commence hostilities, the\nwar would be short. She would lose her navy. The little commerce\nshe has would be driven from the sea. She would drink to the dregs\nthe cup of humiliation and disgrace. I do not believe that Spain\nis insane enough to fire upon our flag. I know that there is\nnothing too mean, too cruel for her to do, but still she must have\nsense enough to try and save her own life. No, I think there will\nbe no war, but I believe that Cuba will be free. My opinion is\nthat the Maine was blown up from the outside--blown up by Spanish\nofficers, and I think the report of the Board will be to that\neffect. Such a crime ought to redden even the cheeks of Spain.\nAs soon as this fact is known, other nations will regard Spain with\nhatred and horror. If the Maine was destroyed by Spain we will\nask for indemnity. The people insist that the account be settled\nand at once. Possibly we may attack Spain. There is the only\ndanger of war. We must avenge that crime. The destruction of two\nhundred and fifty-nine Americans must be avenged. Free Cuba must\nbe their monument. I hope for the sake of human nature that the\nSpanish did not destroy the Maine. I hope it was the result of an\naccident. I hope there is to be no war, but Spain must be driven\nfrom the New World.\n\n_Question_. What about Zola's trial and conviction?\n\n_Answer_. It was one of the most infamous trials in the history\nof the world. Zola is a great man, a genius, the best man in\nFrance. His trial was a travesty on justice. The judge acted like\na bandit. The proceedings were a disgrace to human nature. The\njurors must have been ignorant beasts. The French have disgraced\nthemselves. Long live Zola.\n\n_Question_. Having expressed yourself less upon the subject of\nTheosophy than upon other religious beliefs, and as Theosophy denies\nthe existence of a God as worshiped by Christianity, what is your\nidea of the creed?\n\n_Answer_. Insanity. I think it is a mild form of delusion and\nillusion; vague, misty, obscure, half dream, mixed with other\nmistakes and fragments of facts--a little philosophy, absurdity--\na few impossibilities--some improbabilities--some accounts of events\nthat never happened--some prophecies that will not come to pass--\na structure without foundation. But the Theosophists are good\npeople; kind and honest. Theosophy is based on the supernatural\nand is just as absurd as the orthodox creeds.\n\n--_The Courier-Journal_, Louisville, Ky., February, 1898.\n\n\nHOW TO BECOME AN ORATOR.\n\n_Question_. What advice would you give to a young man who was\nambitious to become a successful public speaker or orator?\n\n_Answer_. In the first place, I would advise him to have something\nto say--something worth saying--something that people would be glad\nto hear. This is the important thing. Back of the art of speaking\nmust be the power to think. Without thoughts words are empty\npurses. Most people imagine that almost any words uttered in a\nloud voice and accompanied by appropriate gestures, constitute an\noration. I would advise the young man to study his subject, to\nfind what others had thought, to look at it from all sides. Then\nI would tell him to write out his thoughts or to arrange them in\nhis mind, so that he would know exactly what he was going to say.\nWaste no time on the how until you are satisfied with the what.\nAfter you know what you are to say, then you can think of how it\nshould be said. Then you can think about tone, emphasis, and\ngesture; but if you really understand what you say, emphasis, tone,\nand gesture will take care of themselves. All these should come\nfrom the inside. They should be in perfect harmony with the\nfeelings. Voice and gesture should be governed by the emotions.\nThey should unconsciously be in perfect agreement with the sentiments.\nThe orator should be true to his subject, should avoid any reference\nto himself.\n\nThe great column of his argument should be unbroken. He can adorn\nit with vines and flowers, but they should not be in such profusion\nas to hide the column. He should give variety of episode by\nillustrations, but they should be used only for the purpose of\nadding strength to the argument. The man who wishes to become an\norator should study language. He should know the deeper meaning\nof words. He should understand the vigor and velocity of verbs\nand the color of adjectives. He should know how to sketch a scene,\nto paint a picture, to give life and action. He should be a poet\nand a dramatist, a painter and an actor. He should cultivate his\nimagination. He should become familiar with the great poetry and\nfiction, with splendid and heroic deeds. He should be a student\nof Shakespeare. He should read and devour the great plays. From\nShakespeare he could learn the art of expression, of compression,\nand all the secrets of the head and heart.\n\nThe great orator is full of variety--of surprises. Like a juggler,\nhe keeps the colored balls in the air. He expresses himself in\npictures. His speech is a panorama. By continued change he holds\nthe attention. The interest does not flag. He does not allow\nhimself to be anticipated. A picture is shown but once. So, an\norator should avoid the commonplace. There should be no stuffing,\nno filling. He should put no cotton with his silk, no common metals\nwith his gold. He should remember that \"gilded dust is not as good\nas dusted gold.\" The great orator is honest, sincere. He does\nnot pretend. His brain and heart go together. Every drop of his\nblood is convinced. Nothing is forced. He knows exactly what he\nwishes to do--knows when he has finished it, and stops.\n\nOnly a great orator knows when and how to close. Most speakers go\non after they are through. They are satisfied only with a \"lame\nand impotent conclusion.\" Most speakers lack variety. They travel\na straight and dusty road. The great orator is full of episode.\nHe convinces and charms by indirection. He leaves the road, visits\nthe fields, wanders in the woods, listens to the murmurs of springs,\nthe songs of birds. He gathers flowers, scales the crags and comes\nback to the highway refreshed, invigorated. He does not move in\na straight line. He wanders and winds like a stream.\n\nOf course, no one can tell a man what to do to become an orator.\nThe great orator has that wonderful thing called presence. He has\nthat strange something known as magnetism. He must have a flexible,\nmusical voice, capable of expressing the pathetic, the humorous,\nthe heroic. His body must move in unison with his thought. He\nmust be a reasoner, a logician. He must have a keen sense of humor\n--of the laughable. He must have wit, sharp and quick. He must\nhave sympathy. His smiles should be the neighbors of his tears.\nHe must have imagination. He should give eagles to the air, and\npainted moths should flutter in the sunlight.\n\nWhile I cannot tell a man what to do to become an orator, I can\ntell him a few things not to do. There should be no introduction\nto an oration. The orator should commence with his subject. There\nshould be no prelude, no flourish, no apology, no explanation. He\nshould say nothing about himself. Like a sculptor, he stands by\nhis block of stone. Every stroke is for a purpose. As he works\nthe form begins to appear. When the statue is finished the workman\nstops. Nothing is more difficult than a perfect close. Few poems,\nfew pieces of music, few novels end well. A good story, a great\nspeech, a perfect poem should end just at the proper point. The\nbud, the blossom, the fruit. No delay. A great speech is a\ncrystallization in its logic, an efflorescence in its poetry.\n\nI have not heard many speeches. Most of the great speakers in our\ncountry were before my time. I heard Beecher, and he was an orator.\nHe had imagination, humor and intensity. His brain was as fertile\nas the valleys of the tropics. He was too broad, too philosophic,\ntoo poetic for the pulpit. Now and then, he broke the fetters of\nhis creed, escaped from his orthodox prison, and became sublime.\n\nTheodore Parker was an orator. He preached great sermons. His\nsermons on \"Old Age\" and \"Webster,\" and his address on \"Liberty\"\nwere filled with great thoughts, marvelously expressed. When he\ndealt with human events, with realities, with things he knew, he\nwas superb. When he spoke of freedom, of duty, of living to the\nideal, of mental integrity, he seemed inspired.\n\nWebster I never heard. He had great qualities; force, dignity,\nclearness, grandeur; but, after all, he worshiped the past. He\nkept his back to the sunrise. There was no dawn in his brain. He\nwas not creative. He had no spirit of prophecy. He lighted no\ntorch. He was not true to his ideal. He talked sometimes as though\nhis head was among the stars, but he stood in the gutter. In the\nname of religion he tried to break the will of Stephen Girard--to\ndestroy the greatest charity in all the world; and in the name of\nthe same religion he defended the Fugitive Slave Law. His purpose\nwas the same in both cases. He wanted office. Yet he uttered a\nfew very great paragraphs, rich with thought, perfectly expressed.\n\nClay I never heard, but he must have had a commanding presence, a\nchivalric bearing, an heroic voice. He cared little for the past.\nHe was a natural leader, a wonderful talker--forcible, persuasive,\nconvincing. He was not a poet, not a master of metaphor, but he\nwas practical. He kept in view the end to be accomplished. He\nwas the opposite of Webster. Clay was the morning, Webster the\nevening. Clay had large views, a wide horizon. He was ample,\nvigorous, and a little tyrannical.\n\nBenton was thoroughly commonplace. He never uttered an inspired\nword. He was an intense egoist. No subject was great enough to\nmake him forget himself. Calhoun was a political Calvinist--narrow,\nlogical, dogmatic. He was not an orator. He delivered essays,\nnot orations. I think it was in 1851 that Kossuth visited this\ncountry. He was an orator. There was no man, at that time, under\nour flag, who could speak English as well as he. In the first\nspeech I read of Kossuth's was this line: \"Russia is the rock\nagainst which the sigh for freedom breaks.\" In this you see the\npoet, the painter, the orator.\n\nS. S. Prentiss was an orator, but, with the recklessness of a\ngamester, he threw his life away. He said profound and beautiful\nthings, but he lacked application. He was uneven, disproportioned,\nsaying ordinary things on great occasions, and now and then, without\nthe slightest provocation, uttering the sublimest and most beautiful\nthoughts.\n\nIn my judgment, Corwin was the greatest orator of them all. He\nhad more arrows in his quiver. He had genius. He was full of\nhumor, pathos, wit, and logic. He was an actor. His body talked.\nHis meaning was in his eyes and lips. Gov. O. P. Morton of Indiana\nhad the greatest power of statement of any man I ever heard. All\nthe argument was in his statement. The facts were perfectly grouped.\nThe conclusion was a necessity.\n\nThe best political speech I ever heard was made by Gov. Richard J.\nOglesby of Illinois. It had every element of greatness--reason,\nhumor, wit, pathos, imagination, and perfect naturalness. That\nwas in the grand years, long ago. Lincoln had reason, wonderful\nhumor, and wit, but his presence was not good. His voice was poor,\nhis gestures awkward--but his thoughts were profound. His speech\nat Gettysburg is one of the masterpieces of the world. The word\n\"here\" is used four or five times too often. Leave the \"heres\"\nout, and the speech is perfect.\n\nOf course, I have heard a great many talkers, but orators are few\nand far between. They are produced by victorious nations--born in\nthe midst of great events, of marvelous achievements. They utter\nthe thoughts, the aspirations of their age. They clothe the children\nof the people in the gorgeous robes of giants. The interpret the\ndreams. With the poets, they prophesy. They fill the future with\nheroic forms, with lofty deeds. They keep their faces toward the\ndawn--toward the ever-coming day.\n\n--_New York Sun_, April, 1898.\n\n\nJOHN RUSSELL YOUNG AND EXPANSION.\n\n_Question_. You knew John Russell Young, Colonel?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, I knew him well and we were friends for many years.\nHe was a wonderfully intelligent man--knew something about everything,\nhad read most books worth reading. He was one of the truest friends.\nHe had a genius for friendship. He never failed to do a favor when\nhe could, and he never forgot a favor. He had the genius of\ngratitude. His mind was keen, smooth, clear, and he really loved\nto think. I had the greatest admiration for his character and I\nwas shocked when I read of his death. I did not know that he had\nbeen ill. All my heart goes out to his wife--a lovely woman, now\nleft alone with her boy. After all, life is a fearful thing at\nbest. The brighter the sunshine the deeper the shadow.\n\n_Question_. Are you in favor of expansion?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, I have always wanted more--I love to see the Republic\ngrow. I wanted the Sandwich Islands, wanted Porto Rico, and I want\nCuba if the Cubans want us. I want the Philippines if the Filipinos\nwant us--I do not want to conquer and enslave those people. The\nwar on the Filipinos is a great mistake--a blunder--almost a crime.\n\nIf the President had declared his policy, then, if his policy was\nright, there was no need of war. The President should have told\nthe Filipinos just exactly what he wanted. It is a small business,\nafter Dewey covered Manila Bay with glory, to murder a lot of half-\narmed savages. We had no right to buy, because Spain had no right\nto sell the Philippines. We acquired no rights on those islands\nby whipping Spain.\n\n_Question_. Do you think the President should have stated his\npolicy in Boston the other day?\n\n_Answer_. Yes, I think it would be better if he would unpack his\nlittle budget--I like McKinley, but I liked him just as well before\nhe was President. He is a good man, not because he is President,\nbut because he is a man--you know that real honor must be earned--\npeople cannot give honor--honor is not alms--it is wages. So, when\na man is elected President the best thing he can do is to remain\na natural man. Yes, I wish McKinley would brush all his advisers\nto one side and say his say; I believe his say would be right.\n\nNow, don't change this interview and make me say something mean\nabout McKinley, because I like him. The other day, in Chicago, I\nhad an interview and I wrote it out. In that \"interview\" I said\na few things about the position of Senator Hoar. I tried to show\nthat he was wrong--but I took pains to express by admiration for\nSenator Hoar. When the interview was published I was made to say\nthat Senator Hoar was a mud-head. I never said or thought anything\nof the kind. Don't treat me as that Chicago reporter did.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of Atkinson's speech?\n\n_Answer_. Well, some of it is good--but I never want to see the\nsoldiers of the Republic whipped. I am always on our side.\n\n--_The Press_, Philadelphia, February 20, 1899.\n\n\nPSYCHICAL RESEARCH AND THE BIBLE.*\n\n[* As an incident in the life of any one favored with the privilege,\na visit to the home of Col. Robert G. Ingersoll is certain to be\nrecalled as a most pleasant and profitable experience. Although\nnot a sympathizer with the great Agnostic's religious views, yet I\nhave long admired his ability, his humor, his intellectual honesty\nand courage. And it was with gratification that I accepted the\ngood offices of a common friend who recently offered to introduce\nme to the Ingersoll domestic circle in Gramercy Park. Here I found\nthe genial Colonel, surrounded by his children, his grandchildren,\nand his amiable wife, whose smiling greeting dispelled formality\nand breathed \"Welcome\" in every syllable. The family relationship\nseemed absolutely ideal--the very walls emitting an atmosphere of\nart and music, of contentment and companionship, of mutual trust,\nhappiness and generosity.\n\nBut my chief desire was to elicit Colonel Ingersoll's personal\nviews on questions related to the New Thought and its attitude on\nmatters on which he is known to have very decided opinions. My\nrequest for a private chat was cordially granted. During the\nconversation that ensued--(the substance of which is presented to\nthe readers of _Mind_ in the following paragraphs, with the Colonel's\nconsent)--I was impressed most deeply, not by the force of his\narguments, but by the sincerity of his convictions. Among some of\nhis more violent opponents, who presumably lack other opportunities\nof becoming known, it is the fashion to accuse Ingersoll of having\nreally no belief in his own opinions. But, if he convinced me of\nlittle else, he certainly, without effort, satisfied my mind that\nthis accusation is a slander. Utterly mistaken in his views he may\nbe; but if so, his errors are more honest than many of those he\npoints out in the King James version of the Bible. If his pulpit\nenemies could talk with this man by his own fireside, they would\npay less attention to Ingersoll himself and more to what he says.\nThey would consider his _meaning_, rather than his motive.\n\nAs the Colonel is the most conspicuous denunciator of intolerance\nand bigotry in America, he has been inevitably the greatest victim\nof these obstacles to mental freedom. \"To answer Ingersoll\" is\nthe pet ambition of many a young clergyman--the older ones have\neither acquired prudence or are broad enough to concede the utility\nof even Agnostics in the economy of evolution. It was with the\nvery subject that we began our talk--the uncharitableness of men,\notherwise good, in their treatment of those whose religious views\ndiffer from their own.]\n\n_Question_. What is your conception of true intellectual hospitality?\nAs Truth can brook no compromises, has it not the same limitations\nthat surround social and domestic hospitality?\n\n_Answer_. In the republic of mind we are all equals. Each one is\nsceptered and crowned. Each one is the monarch of his own realm.\nBy \"intellectual hospitality\" I mean the right of every one to\nthink and to express his thought. It makes no difference whether\nhis thought is right or wrong. If you are intellectually hospitable\nyou will admit the right of every human being to see for himself;\nto hear with his own ears, see with his own eyes, and think with\nhis own brain. You will not try to change his thought by force,\nby persecution, or by slander. You will not threaten him with\npunishment--here or hereafter. You will give him your thought,\nyour reasons, your facts; and there you will stop. This is\nintellectual hospitality. You do not give up what you believe to\nbe the truth; you do not compromise. You simply give him the\nliberty you claim for yourself. The truth is not affected by your\nopinion or by his. Both may be wrong. For many years the church\nhas claimed to have the \"truth,\" and has also insisted that it is\nthe duty of every man to believe it, whether it is reasonable to\nhim or not. This is bigotry in its basest form. Every man should\nbe guided by his reason; should be true to himself; should preserve\nthe veracity of his soul. Each human being should judge for himself.\nThe man that believes that all men have this right is intellectually\nhospitable.\n\n_Question_. In the sharp distinction between theology and religion\nthat is now recognized by many theologians, and in the liberalizing\nof the church that has marked the last two decades, are not most\nof your contentions already granted? Is not the \"lake of fire and\nbrimstone\" an obsolete issue?\n\n_Answer_. There has been in the last few years a great advance.\nThe orthodox creeds have been growing vulgar and cruel. Civilized\npeople are shocked at the dogma of eternal pain, and the belief in\nhell has mostly faded away. The churches have not changed their\ncreeds. They still pretend to believe as they always have--but\nthey have changed their tone. God is now a father--a friend. He\nis no longer the monster, the savage, described in the Bible. He\nhas become somewhat civilized. He no longer claims the right to\ndamn us because he made us. But in spite of all the errors and\ncontradictions, in spite of the cruelties and absurdities found in\nthe Scriptures, the churches still insist that the Bible is\n_inspired_. The educated ministers admit that the Pentateuch was\nnot written by Moses; that the Psalms were not written by David;\nthat Isaiah was the work of at least three; that Daniel was not\nwritten until after the prophecies mentioned in that book had been\nfulfilled; that Ecclesiastes was not written until the second\ncentury after Christ; that Solomon's Song was not written by Solomon;\nthat the book of Esther is of no importance; and that no one knows,\nor pretends to know, who were the authors of Kings, Samuel,\nChronicles, or Job. And yet these same gentlemen still cling to\nthe dogma of inspiration! It is no longer claimed that the Bible\nis true--but _inspired_.\n\n_Question_. Yet the sacred volume, no matter who wrote it, is a\nmine of wealth to the student and the philosopher, is it not?\nWould you have us discard it altogether?\n\n_Answer_. Inspiration must be abandoned, and the Bible must take\nits place among the books of the world. It contains some good\npassages, a little poetry, some good sense, and some kindness; but\nits philosophy is frightful. In fact, if the book had never existed\nI think it would have been far better for mankind. It is not enough\nto give up the Bible; that is only the beginning. The _supernatural_\nmust be given up. It must be admitted that Nature has no master;\nthat there never has been any interference from without; that man\nhas received no help from heaven; and that all the prayers that\nhave ever been uttered have died unanswered in the heedless air.\nThe religion of the supernatural has been a curse. We want the\nreligion of usefulness.\n\n_Question_. But have you no use whatever for prayer--even in the\nsense of aspiration--or for faith, in the sense of confidence in\nthe ultimate triumph of the right?\n\n_Answer_. There is a difference between wishing, hoping, believing,\nand--knowing. We can wish without evidence or probability, and we\ncan wish for the impossible--for what we believe can never be. We\ncannot hope unless there is in the mind a possibility that the\nthing hoped for can happen. We can believe only in accordance with\nevidence, and we know only that which has been demonstrated. I\nhave no use for prayer; but I do a good deal of wishing and hoping.\nI hope that some time the right will triumph--that Truth will gain\nthe victory; but I have no faith in gaining the assistance of any\ngod, or of any supernatural power. I never pray.\n\n_Question_. However fully materialism, as a philosophy, may accord\nwith the merely human _reason_, is it not wholly antagonistic to\nthe instinctive faculties of the mind?\n\n_Answer_. Human reason is the final arbiter. Any system that does\nnot commend itself to the reason must fall. I do not know exactly\nwhat you mean by _materialism_. I do not know what matter is. I\nam satisfied, however, that without matter there can be no force,\nno life, no thought, no reason. It seems to me that mind is a form\nof force, and force cannot exist apart from matter. If it is said\nthat God created the universe, then there must have been a time\nwhen he commenced to create. If at that time there was nothing in\nexistence but himself, how could he have exerted any force? Force\ncannot be exerted except in opposition to force. If God was the\nonly existence, force could not have been exerted.\n\n_Question_. But don't you think, Colonel, that the materialistic\nphilosophy, even in the light of your own interpretation, is\nessentially pessimistic?\n\n_Answer_. I do not consider it so. I believe that the pessimists\nand the optimists are both right. This is the worst possible world,\nand this is the best possible world--because it is as it must be.\nThe present is the child, and the necessary child, of all the past.\n\n_Question_. What have you to say concerning the operations of the\nSociety for Psychical Research? Do not its facts and conclusions\nprove, if not immortality, at least the continuity of life beyond\nthe grave? Are the millions of Spiritualists deluded?\n\n_Answer_. Of course I have heard and read a great deal about the\ndoings of the Society; so, I have some knowledge as to what is\nclaimed by Spiritualists, by Theosophists, and by all other believers\nin what are called \"spiritual manifestations.\" Thousands of\nwonderful tings have been established by what is called \"evidence\"\n--the testimony of good men and women. I have seen things done\nthat I could not explain, both by mediums and magicians. I also\nknow that it is easy to deceive the senses, and that the old saying\n\"that seeing is believing\" is subject to many exceptions. I am\nperfectly satisfied that there is, and can be, no force without\nmatter; that everything that is--all phenomena--all actions and\nthoughts, all exhibitions of force, have a material basis--that\nnothing exists,--ever did, or ever will exist, apart from matter.\nSo I am satisfied that no matter ever existed, or ever will, apart\nfrom force.\n\nWe think with the same force with which we walk. For every action\nand for every thought, we draw upon the store of force that we have\ngained from air and food. We create no force; we borrow it all.\nAs force cannot exist apart from matter, it must be used _with_\nmatter. It travels only on material roads. It is impossible to\nconvey a thought to another without the assistance of matter. No\none can conceive of the use of one of our senses without substance.\nNo one can conceive of a thought in the absence of the senses.\nWith these conclusions in my mind--in my brain--I have not the\nslightest confidence in \"spiritual manifestations,\" and do not\nbelieve that any message has ever been received from the dead.\nThe testimony that I have heard--that I have read--coming even from\nmen of science--has not the slightest weight with me. I do not\npretend to see beyond the grave. I do not say that man is, or is\nnot, immortal. All I say is that there is no evidence that we live\nagain, and no demonstration that we do not. It is better ignorantly\nto hope than dishonestly to affirm.\n\n_Question_. And what do you think of the modern development of\nmetaphysics--as expressed outside of the emotional and semi-\necclesiastical schools? I refer especially to the power of mind\nin the curing of disease--as demonstrated by scores of drugless\nhealers.\n\n_Answer_. I have no doubt that the condition of the mind has some\neffect upon the health. The blood, the heart, the lungs answer--\nrespond to--emotion. There is no mind without body, and the body\nis affected by thought--by passion, by cheerfulness, by depression.\nStill, I have not the slightest confidence in what is called \"mind\ncure.\" I do not believe that thought, or any set of ideas, can\ncure a cancer, or prevent the hair from falling out, or remove a\ntumor, or even freckles. At the same time, I admit that cheerfulness\nis good and depression bad. But I have no confidence in what you\ncall \"drugless healers.\" If the stomach is sour, soda is better\nthan thinking. If one is in great pain, opium will beat meditation.\nI am a believer in what you call \"drugs,\" and when I am sick I send\nfor a physician. I have no confidence in the supernatural. Magic\nis not medicine.\n\n_Question_. One great object of this movement, is to make religion\nscientific--an aid to intellectual as well as spiritual progress.\nIs it not thus to be encouraged, and destined to succeed--even\nthough it prove the reality and supremacy of the spirit and the\nsecondary importance of the flesh?\n\n_Answer_. When religion becomes scientific, it ceases to be religion\nand becomes science. Religion is not intellectual--it is emotional.\nIt does not appeal to the reason. The founder of a religion has\nalways said: \"Let him that hath ears to hear, hear!\" No founder\nhas said: \"Let him that hath brains to think, think!\" Besides,\nwe need not trouble ourselves about \"spirit\" and \"flesh.\" We know\nthat we know of no spirit--without flesh. We have no evidence that\nspirit ever did or ever will exist apart from flesh. Such existence\nis absolutely inconceivable. If we are going to construct what\nyou call a \"religion,\" it must be founded on observed and known\nfacts. Theories, to be of value, must be in accord with all the\nfacts that are known; otherwise they are worthless. We need not\ntry to get back of facts or behind the truth. The _why_ will\nforever elude us. You cannot move your hand quickly enough to\ngrasp your image back of the mirror.\n\n--_Mind_, New York, March, 1899.\n\n\n\nTHIS CENTURY'S GLORIES.\n\nThe laurel of the nineteenth century is on Darwin's brow. This\ncentury has been the greatest of all. The inventions, the discoveries,\nthe victories on the fields of thought, the advances in nearly\nevery direction of human effort are without parallel in human\nhistory. In only two directions have the achievements of this\ncentury been excelled. The marbles of Greece have not been equalled.\nThey still occupy the niches dedicated to perfection. They sculptors\nof our century stand before the miracles of the Greeks in impotent\nwonder. They cannot even copy. They cannot give the breath of\nlife to stone and make the marble feel and think. The plays of\nShakespeare have never been approached. He reached the summit,\nfilled the horizon. In the direction of the dramatic, the poetic,\nthe human mind, in my judgment, in Shakespeare's plays reached its\nlimit. The field was harvested, all the secrets of the heart were\ntold. The buds of all hopes blossomed, all seas were crossed and\nall the shores were touched.\n\nWith these two exceptions, the Grecian marbles and the Shakespeare\nplays, the nineteenth century has produced more for the benefit of\nman than all the centuries of the past. In this century, in one\ndirection, I think the mind has reached the limit. I do not believe\nthe music of Wagner will ever be excelled. He changed all passions,\nlonging, memories and aspirations into tones, and with subtle\nharmonies wove tapestries of sound, whereon were pictured the past\nand future, the history and prophecy of the human heart. Of course\nCopernicus, Galileo, Newton and Kepler laid the foundations of\nastronomy. It may be that the three laws of Kepler mark the highest\npoint in that direction that the mind has reached.\n\nIn the other centuries there is now and then a peak, but through\nours there runs a mountain range with Alp on Alp--the steamship\nthat has conquered all the seas; the railway, with its steeds of\nsteel with breath of flame, covers the land; the cables and\ntelegraphs, along which lightning is the carrier of thought, have\nmade the nations neighbors and brought the world to every home;\nthe making of paper from wood, the printing presses that made it\npossible to give the history of the human race each day; the reapers,\nmowers and threshers that superseded the cradles, scythes and\nflails; the lighting of streets and houses with gas and incandescent\nlamps, changing night into day; the invention of matches that made\nfire the companion of man; the process of making steel, invented\nby Bessemer, saving for the world hundreds of millions a year; the\ndiscovery of anesthetics, changing pain to happy dreams and making\nsurgery a science; the spectrum analysis, that told us the secrets\nof the suns; the telephone, that transports speech, uniting lips\nand ears; the phonograph, that holds in dots and marks the echoes\nof our words; the marvelous machines that spin and weave, that\nmanufacture the countless things of use, the marvelous machines,\nwhose wheels and levers seem to think; the discoveries in chemistry,\nthe wave theory of light, the indestructibility of matter and force;\nthe discovery of microbes and bacilli, so that now the plague can\nbe stayed without the assistance of priests.\n\nThe art of photography became known, the sun became an artist, gave\nus the faces of our friends, copies of the great paintings and\nstatues, pictures of the world's wonders, and enriched the eyes of\npoverty with the spoil of travel, the wealth of art. The cell\ntheory was advanced, embryology was studied and science entered\nthe secret house of life. The biologists, guided by fossil forms,\nfollowed the paths of life from protoplasm up to man. Then came\nDarwin with the \"Origin of Species,\" \"Natural Selection,\" and the\n\"Survival of the Fittest.\" From his brain there came a flood of\nlight. The old theories grew foolish and absurd. The temple of\nevery science was rebuilt. That which had been called philosophy\nbecame childish superstition. The prison doors were opened and\nmillions of convicts, of unconscious slaves, roved with joy over\nthe fenceless fields of freedom. Darwin and Haeckel and Huxley\nand their fellow-workers filled the night of ignorance with the\nglittering stars of truth. This is Darwin's victory. He gained\nthe greatest victory, the grandest triumph. The laurel of the\nnineteenth century is on his brow.\n\n_Question_. How does the literature of to-day compare with that\nof the first half of the century, in your opinion?\n\n_Answer_. There is now no poet of laughter and tears, of comedy\nand pathos, the equal of Hood. There is none with the subtle\ndelicacy, the aerial footstep, the flame-like motion of Shelley;\nnone with the amplitude, sweep and passion, with the strength and\nbeauty, the courage and royal recklessness of Byron. The novelists\nof our day are not the equals of Dickens. In my judgment, Dickens\nwrote the greatest of all novels. \"The Tale of Two Cities\" is the\nsupreme work of fiction. Its philosophy is perfect. The characters\nstand out like living statues. In its pages you find the blood\nand flame, the ferocity and self-sacrifice of the French Revolution.\nIn the bosom of the Vengeance is the heart of the horror. In 105,\nNorth Tower, sits one whom sorrow drove beyond the verge, rescued\nfrom death by insanity, and we see the spirit of Dr. Manette\ntremblingly cross the great gulf that lies between the night of\ndreams and the blessed day, where things are as they seem, as a\ntress of golden hair, while on his hands and cheeks fall Lucie's\nblessed tears. The story is filled with lights and shadows, with\nthe tragic and grotesque. While the woman knits, while the heads\nfall, Jerry Cruncher gnaws his rusty nails and his poor wife \"flops\"\nagainst his business, and prim Miss Pross, who in the desperation\nand terror of love held Mme. Defarge in her arms and who in the\nflash and crash found that her burden was dead, is drawn by the\nhand of a master. And what shall I say of Sidney Carton? Of his\nlast walk? Of his last ride, holding the poor girl by the hand?\nIs there a more wonderful character in all the realm of fiction?\nSidney Carton, the perfect lover, going to his death for the love\nof one who loves another. To me the three greatest novels are \"The\nTale of Two Cities,\" by Dickens, \"Les Miserables,\" by Hugo, and\n\"Ariadne,\" by Ouida.\n\n\"Les Miserables\" is full of faults and perfections. The tragic is\nsometimes pushed to the grotesque, but from the depths it brings\nthe pearls of truth. A convict becomes holier than the saint, a\nprostitute purer than the nun. This book fills the gutter with\nthe glory of heaven, while the waters of the sewer reflect the\nstars.\n\nIn \"Ariadne\" you find the aroma of all art. It is a classic dream.\nAnd there, too, you find the hot blood of full and ample life.\nOuida is the greatest living writer of fiction. Some of her books\nI do not like. If you wish to know what Ouida really is, read\n\"Wanda,\" \"The Dog of Flanders,\" \"The Leaf in a Storm.\" In these\nyou will hear the beating of her heart.\n\nMost of the novelists of our time write good stories. They are\ningenious, the characters are well drawn, but they lack life,\nenergy. They do not appear to act for themselves, impelled by\ninner force. They seem to be pushed and pulled. The same may be\nsaid of the poets. Tennyson belongs to the latter half of our\ncentury. He was undoubtedly a great writer. He had no flame or\nstorm, no tidal wave, nothing volcanic. He never overflowed the\nbanks. He wrote nothing as intense, as noble and pathetic as the\n\"Prisoner of Chillon;\" nothing as purely poetic as \"The Skylark;\"\nnothing as perfect as the \"Grecian Urn,\" and yet he was one of the\ngreatest of poets. Viewed from all sides he was far greater than\nShelley, far nobler than Keats. In a few poems Shelley reached\nalmost the perfect, but many are weak, feeble, fragmentary, almost\nmeaningless. So Keats in three poems reached a great height--in\n\"St. Agnes' Eve,\" \"The Grecian Urn,\" and \"The Nightingale\"--but\nmost of his poetry is insipid, without thought, beauty or sincerity.\n\nWe have had some poets ourselves. Emerson wrote many poetic and\nphilosophic lines. He never violated any rule. He kept his passions\nunder control and generally \"kept off the grass.\" But he uttered\nsome great and splendid truths and sowed countless seeds of\nsuggestion. When we remember that he came of a line of New England\npreachers we are amazed at the breadth, the depth and the freedom\nof his thought.\n\nWalt Whitman wrote a few great poems, elemental, natural--poems\nthat seem to be a part of nature, ample as the sky, having the\nrhythm of the tides, the swing of a planet.\n\nWhitcomb Riley has written poems of hearth and home, of love and\nlabor worthy of Robert Burns. He is the sweetest, strongest singer\nin our country and I do not know his equal in any land.\n\nBut when we compare the literature of the first half of this century\nwith that of the last, we are compelled to say that the last, taken\nas a whole, is best. Think of the volumes that science has given\nto the world. In the first half of this century, sermons, orthodox\nsermons, were published and read. Now reading sermons is one of\nthe lost habits. Taken as a whole, the literature of the latter\nhalf of our century is better than the first. I like the essays\nof Prof. Clifford. They are so clear, so logical that they are\npoetic. Herbert Spencer is not simply instructive, he is charming.\nHe is full of true imagination. He is not the slave of imagination.\nImagination is his servant. Huxley wrote like a trained swordsman.\nHis thrusts were never parried. He had superb courage. He never\napologized for having an opinion. There was never on his soul the\nstain of evasion. He was as candid as the truth. Haeckel is a\ngreat writer because he reveres a fact, and would not for his life\ndeny or misinterpret one. He tells what he knows with the candor\nof a child and defends his conclusions like a scientist, a philosopher.\nHe stands next to Darwin.\n\nComing back to fiction and poetry, I have great admiration for\nEdgar Fawcett. There is in his poetry thought, beauty and philosophy.\nHe has the courage of his thought. He knows our language, the\nenergy of verbs, the color of adjectives. He is in the highest\nsense an artist.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of Hall Caine's recent efforts to\nbring about a closer union between the stage and pulpit?\n\n_Answer_. Of course, I am not certain as to the intentions of Mr.\nCaine. I saw \"The Christian,\" and it did not seem to me that the\nauthor was trying to catch the clergy.\n\nThere is certainly nothing in the play calculated to please the\npulpit. There is a clergyman who is pious and heartless. John\nStorm is the only Christian, and he is crazy. When Glory accepts\nhim at last, you not only feel, but you know she has acted the\nfool. The lord in the piece is a dog, and the real gentleman is\nthe chap that runs the music hall. How the play can please the\npulpit I do not see. Storm's whole career is a failure. His\nfollowers turn on him like wild beasts. His religion is a divine\nand diabolical dream. With him murder is one of the means of\nsalvation. Mr. Caine has struck Christianity a stinging blow\nbetween the eyes. He has put two preachers on the stage, one a\nheartless hypocrite and the other a madman. Certainly I am not\nprejudiced in favor of Christianity, and yet I enjoyed the play.\nIf Mr. Caine says he is trying to bring the stage and the pulpit\ntogether, then he is a humorist, with the humor of Rabelais.\n\n_Question_. What do recent exhibitions in this city, of scenes\nfrom the life of Christ, indicate with regard to the tendencies of\nmodern art?\n\n_Answer_. Nothing. Some artists love the sombre, the melancholy,\nthe hopeless. They enjoy painting the bowed form, the tear-filled\neyes. To them grief is a festival. There are people who find\npleasure in funerals. They love to watch the mourners. The falling\nclods make music. They love the silence, the heavy odors, the\nsorrowful hymns and the preacher's remarks. The feelings of such\npeople do not indicate the general trend of the human mind. Even\na poor artist may hope for success if he represents something in\nwhich many millions are deeply interested, around which their\nemotions cling like vines. A man need not be an orator to make a\npatriotic speech, a speech that flatters his audience. So, an\nartist need not be great in order to satisfy, if his subject appeals\nto the prejudice of those who look at his pictures.\n\nI have never seen a good painting of Christ. All the Christs that\nI have seen lack strength and character. They look weak and\ndespairing. They are all unhealthy. They have the attitude of\napology, the sickly smile of non-resistance. I have never seen an\nheroic, serene and triumphant Christ. To tell the truth, I never\nsaw a great religious picture. They lack sincerity. All the angels\nlook almost idiotic. In their eyes is no thought, only the innocence\nof ignorance.\n\nI think that art is leaving the celestial, the angelic, and is\ngetting in love with the natural, the human. Troyon put more genius\nin the representation of cattle than Angelo and Raphael did in\nangels. No picture has been painted of heaven that is as beautiful\nas a landscape by Corot. The aim of art is to represent the\nrealities, the highest and noblest, the most beautiful. The Greeks\ndid not try to make men like gods, but they made gods like men.\nSo that great artists of our day go to nature.\n\n_Question_. Is it not strange that, with one exception, the most\nnotable operas written since Wagner are by Italian composers instead\nof German?\n\n_Answer_. For many years German musicians insisted that Wagner\nwas not a composer. They declared that he produced only a succession\nof discordant noises. I account for this by the fact that the\nmusic of Wagner was not German. His countrymen could not understand\nit. They had to be educated. There was no orchestra in Germany\nthat could really play \"Tristan and Isolde.\" Its eloquence, its\npathos, its shoreless passion was beyond them. There is no reason\nto suppose that Germany is to produce another Wagner. Is England\nexpected to give us another Shakespeare?\n\n--_The Sun_, New York, March 19, 1899.\n\n\nCAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND THE WHIPPING-POST.\n\n_Question_. What do you think of Governor Roosevelt's decision in\nthe case of Mrs. Place?\n\n_Answer_. I think the refusal of Governor Roosevelt to commute\nthe sentence of Mrs. Place is a disgrace to the State. What a\nspectacle of man killing a woman--taking a poor, pallid, frightened\nwoman, strapping her to a chair and then arranging the apparatus\nso she can be shocked to death. Many call this a Christian country.\nA good many people who believe in hell would naturally feel it\ntheir duty to kill a wretched, insane woman.\n\nSociety has a right to protect itself, but this can be done by\nimprisonment, and it is more humane to put a criminal in a cell\nthan in a grave. Capital punishment degrades and hardens a\ncommunity and it is a work of savagery. It is savagery. Capital\npunishment does not prevent murder, but sets an example--an example\nby the State--that is followed by its citizens. The State murders\nits enemies and the citizen murders his. Any punishment that\ndegrades the punished, must necessarily degrade the one inflicting\nthe punishment. No punishment should be inflicted by a human being\nthat could not be inflicted by a gentleman.\n\nFor instance, take the whipping-post. Some people are in favor of\nflogging because they say that some offences are of such a frightful\nnature that flogging is the only punishment. They forget that the\npunishment must be inflicted by somebody, and that somebody is a\nlow and contemptible cur. I understand that John G. Shortall,\npresident of the Humane Society of Illinois, has had a bill introduced\ninto the Legislature of the State for the establishment of the\nwhipping-post.\n\nThe shadow of that post would disgrace and darken the whole State.\nNothing could be more infamous, and yet this man is president of\nthe Humane Society. Now, the question arises, what is humane about\nthis society? Certainly not its president. Undoubtedly he is\nsincere. Certainly no man would take that position unless he was\nsincere. Nobody deliberately pretends to be bad, but the idea of\nhis being president of the Humane Society is simply preposterous.\nWith his idea about the whipping-post he might join a society of\nhyenas for the cultivation of ferocity, for certainly nothing short\nof that would do justice to his bill. I have too much confidence\nin the legislators of that State, and maybe my confidence rests in\nthe fact that I do not know them, to think that the passage of such\na bill is possible. If it were passed I think I would be justified\nin using the language of the old Marylander, who said, \"I have\nlived in Maryland fifty years, but I have never counted them, and\nmy hope is, that God won't.\"\n\n_Question_. What did you think of the late Joseph Medill?\n\n_Answer_. I was not very well acquainted with Mr. Medill. I had\na good many conversations with him, and I was quite familiar with\nhis work. I regard him as the greatest editor of the Northwestern\nStates and I am not sure that there was a greater one in the country.\nHe was one of the builders of the Republican party. He was on the\nright side of the great question of Liberty. He was a man of strong\nlikes and I may say dislikes. He never surrendered his personality.\nThe atom called Joseph Medill was never lost in the aggregation\nknown as the Republican party. He was true to that party when it\nwas true to him. As a rule he traveled a road of his own and he\nnever seemed to have any doubt about where the road led. I think\nthat he was an exceedingly useful man. I think the only true\nreligion is usefulness. He was a very strong writer, and when\ntouched by friendship for a man, or a cause, he occasionally wrote\nvery great paragraphs, and paragraphs full of force and most\nadmirably expressed.\n\n--_The Tribune_, Chicago, March 19, 1899.\n\n\nEXPANSION AND TRUSTS.*\n\n[* This was Colonel Ingersoll's last interview.]\n\nI am an expansionist. The country has the land hunger and expansion\nis popular. I want all we can honestly get.\n\nBut I do not want the Philippines unless the Filipinos want us,\nand I feel exactly the same about the Cubans.\n\nWe paid twenty millions of dollars to Spain for the Philippine\nIslands, and we knew that Spain had no title to them.\n\nThe question with me is not one of trade or convenience; it is a\nquestion of right or wrong. I think the best patriot is the man\nwho wants his country to do right.\n\nThe Philippines would be a very valuable possession to us, in view\nof their proximity to China. But, however desirable they may be,\nthat cuts no figure. We must do right. We must act nobly toward\nthe Filipinos, whether we get the islands or not.\n\nI would like to see peace between us and the Filipinos; peace\nhonorable to both; peace based on reason instead of force.\n\nIf control had been given to Dewey, if Miles had been sent to\nManila, I do not believe that a shot would have been fired at the\nFilipinos, and that they would have welcomed the American flag.\n\n_Question_. Although you are not in favor of taking the Philippines\nby force, how do you regard the administration in its conduct of\nthe war?\n\n_Answer_. They have made many mistakes at Washington, and they\nare still making many. If it has been decided to conquer the\nFilipinos, then conquer them at once. Let the struggle not be\ndrawn out and the drops of blood multiplied. The Republican party\nis being weakened by inaction at the Capital. If the war is not\nended shortly, the party in power will feel the evil effects at\nthe presidential election.\n\n_Question_. In what light do you regard the Philippines as an\naddition to the territory of the United States?\n\n_Answer_. Probably in the future, and possibly in the near future,\nthe value of the islands to this country could hardly be calculated.\nThe division of China which is bound to come, will open a market\nof four hundred millions of people. Naturally a possession close\nto the open doors of the East would be of an almost incalculable\nvalue to this country.\n\nIt might perhaps take a long time to teach the Chinese that they\nneed our products. But suppose that the Chinese came to look upon\nwheat in the same light that other people look upon wheat and its\nproduct, bread? What an immense amount of grain it would take to\nfeed four hundred million hungry Chinamen!\n\nThe same would be the case with the rest of our products. So you\nwill perhaps agree with me in my view of the immense value of the\nislands if they could but be obtained by honorable means.\n\n_Question_. If the Democratic party makes anti-imperialism the\nprominent plank in its platform, what effect will it have on the\nparty's chance for success?\n\n_Answer_. Anti-imperialism, as the Democratic battle-cry, would\ngreatly weaken a party already very weak. It is the most unpopular\nissue of the day. The people want expansion. The country is\ninfected with patriotic enthusiasm. The party that tries to resist\nthe tidal wave will be swept away. Anybody who looks can see.\n\nLet a band at any of the summer resorts or at the suburban breathing\nspots play a patriotic air. The listeners are electrified, and\nthey rise and off go their hats when \"The Star-Spangled Banner\" is\nstruck up. Imperialism cannot be fought with success.\n\n_Question_. Will the Democratic party have a strong issue in its\nanti-trust cry?\n\n_Answer_. In my opinion, both parties will nail anti-trust planks\nin their platforms. But this talk is all bosh with both parties.\nNeither one is honest in its cry against trusts. The one making\nthe more noise in this direction may get the votes of some unthinking\npersons, but every one who is capable of reading and digesting what\nhe reads, knows full well that the leaders of neither party are\nsincere and honest in their demonstrations against the trusts.\n\nWhy should the Democratic party lay claim to any anti-trust glory?\nIs it not a Republican administration that is at present investigating\nthe alleged evils of trusts?\n\n--_The North American_, Philadelphia, June 22, 1899.","title":"The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Volume VIII.: Interviews","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":210367}