Full text of "The works of Robert G. Ingersoll"

See other formats

UNIVERSITY OP
CALIFORNIA
S*N DIE©0

r>M

ttl

cRittton

THE WORKS

Robert G. Ingersoll

" HAPPINESS IS THE ONLY GOOD, REASON THE ONLY
TORCH, JUSTICE THE ONLY WORSHIP, HUMANITY THE
ONLY RELIGION, AND LOVE THE ONLY PRIEST."

IN TWELVE VOLUMES
VOLUME VIII.

INTERVIEWS

NEW YORK

THE DRESDEN PUBLISHING CO.,
C. P. FARRELL
MCMII

BY
C. P. FARRELL

BY
THE DRESDEN PUBLISHING CO.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME VIIL

INTERVIEWS.

THE BIBLE AND A FUTURE LIFE, Washington Post, ... i

MRS. VAN COTT, THE REVIVALIST, Buffalo Express, .... 3

EUROPEAN TRIP AND GREENBACK QUESTION, Washington Post, . . 5

THE PRE-MILLENNIAL CONFERENCE, Buffalo Express, ... 10

THE SOLID SOUTH AND RESUMPTION, Cincinnati Commercial, . . n

SUNDAY LAWS OF PITTSBURG, Pittsburg Leader 13

POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS, Chicago Times, 15

POLITICS AND GEN. GRANT, Indianapolis Journal, .... 22

POLITICS, RELIGION AND THOMAS PAINE, Chicago Times, ... 28

REPLY TO CHICAGO CRITICS, Chicago Tribune, 31

THE REPUBLICAN VICTORY, New York Herald, 38

INGERSOLL AND BEECH ER, New York Herald, 40

POLITICAL, Washington Post, 42

RELIGION IN POLITICS, New York Evening Express, .... 49

MIRACLES AND IMMORTALITY, Pittsburg Dispatch, 52

THE POLITICAL OUTLOOK, Cincinnati Commercial 58

MR. BEECHER, MOSES AND THE NEGRO, Brooklyn Eagle, ... 62

HADES, DELAWARE AND FREETHOUGHT, Brooklyn Eagle, ... 69

A REPLY TO THE REV. MR. LANSING, New Haven Sunday Union, . 77

BEACONSFIELD, LENT AND REVIVALS, Brooklyn Eagle, ... So

ANSWERING THE NEW YORK MINISTERS, Chicago Times, ... 84

GUITEAU AND His CRIME, Washington Sunday Gazette, ... 100

DISTRICT SUFFRAGE, Washington Capital, 107

FUNERAL OF JOHN G. MILLS AND IMMORTALITY, Washington Post, . in

STAR ROUTE AND POLITICS, New York Herald, 123

THE INTERVIEWER, New York Morning Journal, 128

POLITICS AND PROHIBITION, Chicago Times, 130

THE REPUBLICAN DEFEAT IN OHIO, Dayton Democrat, . . . 133

(iii) VOL. viii.

IV CONTENTS.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL, Washington National Republican, . . 135

JUSTICE HARLAN AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL, Chicago Inter-Ocean, . 138

POLITICS AND THEOLOGY, Denver Tribune, . . • » '• • Z4S

MORALITY AND IMMORTALITY, Detroit News, . . . . . 148

POLITICS, MORMONISM AND MR. BEECHER, Denver News, . . . 162

FREE TRADE AND CHRISTIANITY, Denver Republican, . « , 169

THE OATH QUESTION, London Secular Review, 179

WENDELL PHILLIPS, FITZ JOHN PORTER AND BISMARCK, Chicago Times, 188

GENERAL SUBJECTS, Kansas City Times, ....... 191

REPLY TO KANSAS CITY CLERGY, Kansas City Journal, . ... 194

SWEARING AND AFFIRMING, Buffalo Courier, . . , . . . 197

REPLY TO A BUFFALO CRITIC, Buffalo Times, . . .. . , 198

BLASPHEMY, Philadelphia Press, . ...,.•.,...« 202

POLITICS AND BRITISH COLUMBIA, San Francisco Evening Post, , , 204

INGERSOLL CATECHISED, San Francisco San Franciscan, . . . 206

ELAINE'S DEFEAT, Topeka Commonwealth, . . . . . . 216

ELAINE'S DEFEAT, Louisville Commercial, ... , . . 218

PLAGIARISM AND POLITICS, Cleveland Plain Dealer, . . . * 220

RELIGIOUS PREJUDICE, New York Mail and Express, , 224

CLEVELAND AND His CABINET, New York Mail and Express, ., . 228

RELIGION, PROHIBITION AND GEN. GRANT, Iowa State Register, . . 231

HELL OR SHEOL AND OTHER SUBJECTS, Boston Evening Record, . 237

INTERVIEWING, POLITICS AND SPIRITUALISM, Cleveland Plain Dealer, . 240

MY BELIEF, Philadelphia Times, . 245

SOME LIVE TOPICS, New York Truth Seeker, .... . .248

THE PRESIDENT AND SENATE, Chicago Inter-Ocean, . . . » 263

ATHEISM AND CITIZENSHIP, New York Herald, . . . * . 266

THE LABOR QUESTION, Cincinnati Enquirer, . . . » • 268

RAILROADS AND POLITICS, Cincinnati Times Star, . . , . . 270

PROHIBITION, Boston Evening Traveler, . . . . , . 271

HENRY GEORGE AND LABOR, New York Herald, . . , • . . 273

LABOR QUESTION AND SOCIALISM, New York World 274

HENRY GEORGE AND SOCIALISM, Chicago Times, 279

REPLY TO THE REV. B. F. MORSE, New York Herald, . . „ . 283

INGERSOLL ON MCGLYNN, Brooklyn Citizen, v- ... . :•• . . 284

TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO ANARCHISTS, New York Mail and Express, . 291
VOL. viii.

CONTENTS. V

THE STAGE AND THE PULPIT, New York Truth Seeker, .... 296

ROSCOE CONKLING, New York Herald, 306

THE CHURCH AND THE STAGE, New York Dramatic Mirror, . . . 307

PROTECTION — FREE TRADE, New York Press 317

LABOR AND TARIFF REFORM, New York Press, 324

CLEVELAND AND THURMAN, New York Press, 334

THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM OF 1888, New York Press, . . . 347

JAMES G. ELAINE AND POLITICS, New York Press, .... 357

THE MILLS BILL, New York Press, . 360

SOCIETY AND ITS CRIMINALS, New York World, ..... 369

WOMAN'S RIGHT TO DIVORCE, New York World, 383

SECULARISM, Toronto Secular Thought, 390

SUMMER RECREATION — MR. GLADSTONE, Unpublished, .... 399

PROHIBITION, New York World, ........ 402

ROBERT ELSMERE, New York World, 412

WORKING GIRLS, New York World, 422

PROTECTION FOR AMERICAN ACTORS, New York Star, .... 430

LIBERALS AND LIBERALISM, Toronto Secular Thought, . . . 437

POPE LEO XIII., New York Herald, 442

THE SACREDNESS OF THE SABBATH, New York Journal, . . . 446

THE WEST AND SOUTH, Indianapolis Journal, 450

THE WESTMINSTER CREED AND OTHER SUBJECTS, Rochester

Post-Express, 451

SHAKESPEARE AND BACON, Minneapolis Tribune, 453

GROWING OLD GRACEFULLY, AND PRESBYTERIANISM, Toledo Blade, . 457

CREEDS, New York Morning Advertiser, , 461

THE TENDENCY OF MODERN THOUGHT, The Chicago Tribune, . . 470

WOMAN SUFFRAGE, HORSE RACING AND MONEY, Chicago Inter-Ocean, . 482

MISSIONARIES, Cleveland Press, 485

MY BELIEF AND UNBELIEF, Toledo Blade, 486

MUST RELIGION Go ? New York Evening Advertiser, .... 487

WORD PAINTING AND COLLEGE EDUCATION, Indianapolis News, . . 489
PERSONAL MAGNETISM AND THE SUNDAY QUESTION, Cincinnati

Commercial Gazette, 491

AUTHORS, Kansas City Star, 499

INEBRIETY, Unpublished, 501

VOL. viu.

fi CONTENTS.

MIRACLES, THEOSOPHY AND SPIRITUALISM, Unpublished, . . .50?

TOLSTOY AND LITERATURE, Buffalo Evening Express, . . . 5*3

WOMAN IN POLITICS, New York Advertiser, . . . . . . S1?

SPIRITUALISM, St. Louis Globe-Democrat, S31

PLAYS AND PLAYERS, New York Dramatic Mirror, 525

WOMAN, A Fragment, 53°'

STRIKES, EXPANSION AND OTHER SUBJECTS, New York, May 5, 1893, . 530"

SUNDAY A DAY OF PLEASURE, New York Times, 533

THE PARLIAMENT OF RELIGIONS, New York Herald, .... 535

CLEVELAND'S HAWAIIAN POLICY, Chicago Inter-Ocean, . . . 537

ORATORS AND ORATORY, London Sketch, 54°

CATHOLICISM AND PROTESTANTISM. — THE POPE. — THE A. P. A.

— AGNOSTICISM AND THE CHURCH, New York Herald, . . . 542

WOMAN AND HER DOMAIN, Grand Rapids Democrat, .... 549

PROFESSOR SWING, Chicago Inter-Ocean, 551

SENATOR SHERMAN AND His BOOK, St. Louis Globe Democrat, . . 552

REPLY TO THE CHRISTIAN ENDEAVORERS, New York Journal, . . 555

SPIRITUALISM, New York Journal, 557

A LITTLE OF EVERYTHING, Rochester Herald, 564

Is LIFE WORTH LIVING ?— CHRISTIAN SCIENCE AND POLITICS,

Chicago Inter-Ocean, . . . 567

VIVISECTION, New York Evening Telegram, ..... 569

DIVORCE, New York Herald, 574

Music, NEWSPAPERS, LYNCHING AND ARBITRATION, Chicago

Inter-Ocean, 578

A VISIT TO SHAW'S GARDEN, St. Louis Republic, 583

THE VENEZUELA BOUNDARY DISCUSSION AND THE WHIPPING

POST, New York Journal, . 584

COLONEL SHEPARD'S STAGE HORSES, New York Morning Advertiser, . 587

A REPLY TO THE REV. L. A. BANKS, Cleveland Plain Dealer, . . 587
CUBA— ZOLA AND THEOSOPHY, Louisville Courier-Journal, . . .591

How TO BECOME AN ORATOR, New York Sun, . ... . 594

JOHN RUSSELL YOUNG AND EXPANSION, Philadelphia Press, . . . 599

PSYCHICAL RESEARCH AND THE BIBLE, New York Mind, . 601

THIS CENTURY'S GLORIES, New York Sun, . . . . . . 6o7

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND THE WHIPPING POST, Chicago Tribune, . 615

EXPANSION AND TRUSTS, Philadelphia North American, . . .617

VOL. viii.

INTERVIEWS.

THE BIBLE AND A FUTURE LIFE.

Question. Colonel, are your views of religion based upon
the Bible ?

Answer. I regard the Bible, especially the Old Testament,
the same as I do most other ancient books, in which there is
some truth, a great deal of error, considerable barbarism
and a most plentiful lack of good sense.

Question. Have you found any other work, sacred or pro
fane, which you regard as more reliable ?

Answer. I know of no book less so, in my judgment.

Question. You have studied the Bible attentively, have you
not?

Answer. I have read the Bible. I have heard it talked
about a good deal, and am sufficiently well acquainted with
it to justify my own mind in utterly rejecting all claims
made for its divine origin.

Question. What do you base your views upon ?

Answer. On reason, observation, experience, upon the dis
coveries in science, upon observed facts and the analogies
properly growing out of such facts. I have no confidence
in anything pretending to be outside, or independent of, or
in any manner above nature.

Question. According to your views, what disposition is
made of man after death ?

Answer. Upon that subject I know nothing. It is no more
wonderful that man should live again than that he now lives ;
upon that question I know of no evidence. The doctrine of

(i)

2 INTERVIEWS.

immortality rests upon human affection. We love, therefore
we wish to live.

Question. Then you would not undertake to say what be
comes of man after death ?

Answer. If I told or pretended to know what becomes of
man after death, I would be as dogmatic as are theologians
upon this question. The difference between them and me is,
I am honest. I admit that I do not know.

Question. Judging by your criticism of mankind, Colonel,
in your recent lecture, you have not found his condition very
satisfactory ?

Answer. Nature, outside of man, so far as I know, is
neither cruel nor merciful. I am not satisfied with the pres
ent condition of the human race, nor with the condition of
man during any period of which we have any knowledge. I
believe, however, the condition of man is improved, and this
improvement is due to his own exertions. I do not make
nature a being. I do not ascribe to nature intention.

Question. Is your theory, Colonel, the result of investiga
tion of the subject?

Answer. No one can control his own opinion or his own
belief. My belief was forced upon me by my surroundings.
I am the product of all circumstances that have in any way
touched me. I believe in this world. I have no confidence
in any religion promising joys in another world at the ex
pense of liberty and happiness in this. At the same time, I
wish to give others all the rights I claim for myself.

Question. If I asked for proofs for your theory, what would
you furnish ?

Answer. The experience of every man who is honest with
himself, every fact that has been discovered in nature. In
addition to these, the utter and total failure of all religionists
in all countries to produce one particle of evidence showing
the existence of any supernatural power whatever, and the
further fact that the people are not satisfied with their relig-

INTERVIEWS. 3

ion. They are continually asking for evidence. They are
asking it in every imaginable way. The sects are continu
ally dividing. There is no real religious serenity in the
world. All religions are opponents of intellectual liberty. I
believe in absolute mental freedom. Real religion with me
is a thing not of the head, but of the heart ; not a theory,
not a creed, but a life.

Question. What punishment, then, is inflicted upon man
for crimes and wrongs committed in this life ?

Answer. There is no such thing as intellectual crime. No
man can commit a mental crime. To become a crime it must
go beyond thought.

Question. What punishment is there for physical crime ?

Answer. Such punishment as is necessary to protect so
ciety and for the reformation of the criminal.

Question. If there is only punishment in this world, will
not some escape punishment ?

Answer. I admit that all do not seem to be punished a*
they deserve. I also admit that all do not seem to be re
warded as they deserve ; and there is in this world, appar
ently, as great failures in matter of reward as in matter of
punishment. If there is another life, a man will be happier
there for acting according to his highest ideal in this. But
I do not discern in nature any effort to do justice. — The Post,

Washington, D. C., 1878.

MRS. VAN COTT, THE REVIVALIST.

Question. I see, Colonel, that in an interview published
this morning, Mrs. Van Cott (the revivalist), calls you " a
poor barking dog." Do you know her personally ?

Answer. I have never met or seen her.

Question. Do you know the reason she applied the
epithet ?

Answer. I suppose it to be the natural result of what is

4 INTERVIEWS.

called vital piety ; that is to say, universal love breeds in
dividual hatred.

Question, Do you intend making any reply to what she
says.

Answer. I have written her a note of which this is a
copy :

Buffalo, Feb. 24th, 1878.
Mrs. VAN COTT :

My dear Madam : — Were you constrained by the love of Christ to
call a man who has never injured you " a poor barking dog " ? Did
you make this remark as a Christian, or as a lady? Did you say
these words to illustrate in some faint degree the refining influence
upon woman of the religion you preach ?

What would you think of me if I should retort, using your language,
changing only the sex of the last word ?
I have the honor to remain,

Yours truly,

R. G. INGERSOLL.

Question. Well, what do you think of the religious re
vival system generally ?

Answer. The fire that has to be blown all the time is a
poor thing to get warm by. I regard these revivals as
essentially barbaric. I think they do no good, but much
harm, they make innocent people think they are guilty,
and very mean people think they are good.

Question. What is your opinion concerning women as
conductors of these revivals ?

Answer. I suppose those engaged in them think they
are doing good. They are probably honest. I think, how
ever, that neither men nor women should be engaged in
frightening people into heaven. That is all I wish to say
on the subject, as I do not think it worth talking

about. — The Express, Buffalo, New York, Feb., 1878.

EUROPEAN TRIP AND GREENBACK QUESTION.

Question. What did you do on your European trip,
Colonel ?

Answer. I went with my family from New York to
Southampton, England, thence to London, and from Lon
don to Edinburgh. In Scotland I visited every place
where Burns had lived, from the cottage where he was born
to the room where he died. I followed him from the
cradle to the coffin. I went to Stratford-upon-Avon for
the purpose of seeing all that I could in any way connected
with Shakespeare ; next to London, where we visited again
all the places of interest, and thence to Paris, where we
spent a couple of weeks in the Exposition.

Question. And what did you think of it ?

Answer. So far as machinery — so far as the practical is
concerned, it is not equal to ours in Philadelphia ; in art it
is incomparably beyond it. I was very much gratified
to find so much evidence in favor of my theory that the
golden age is in front of us; that mankind has been
advancing, that we did not come from a perfect pair and
immediately commence to degenerate. The modern
painters and sculptors are far better and grander than the
ancient. I think we excel in fine arts as much as we do in
agricultural implements. Nothing pleased me more than
the paintings from Holland, because they idealized and
rendered holy the ordinary avocations of life. They paint
cottages with sweet mothers and children ; they paint
homes. They are not much on Ariadnes and Venuses, but
they paint good women.

Question. What did you think of the American display?
Answer. Our part of the Exposition is good, but nothing

6 INTERVIEWS.

to what it should and might have been, but we bring home
nearly as many medals as we took things. We lead the
world in machinery and in ingenious inventions, and some
of our paintings were excellent.

Question. Colonel, crossing the Atlantic back to America,
what do you think of the Greenback movement ?

Answer. In regard to the Greenback party, in the first
place, I am not a believer in miracles. I do not believe
something can be made out of nothing. The Government,
in my judgment, cannot create money ; the Government
can give its note, like an individual, and the prospect of
its being paid determines its value. We have already sub
stantially resumed. Every piece of property that has been
shrinking has simply been resuming. We expended dur
ing the war — not for the useful, but for the useless, not to
build up, but to destroy — at least one thousand million
dollars. The Government was an enormous purchaser ;
when the war ceased the industries of the country lost their
greatest customer. As a consequence there was a surplus
of production, and consequently a surplus of labor. At
last we have gotten back, and the country since the war
has produced over and above the cost of production, some
thing near the amount that was lost during the war. Our
exports are about two hundred million dollars more than
our imports, and this is a healthy sign. There are, how
ever, five or six hundred thousand men, probably, out of
employment ; as prosperity increases this number will
decrease. I am in favor of the Government doing some
thing to ameliorate the condition of these men. I would
like to see constructed the Northern and Southern Pacific
railroads : this would give employment at once to many
thousands, and homes after awhile to millions. All the
signs of the times to me are good. The wretched bankrupt
law, at last, is wiped from the statute books, and honest
people in a short time can get plenty of credit. This law

INTERVIEWS. 7

should have been repealed years before it was. It would
have been far better to have had all who have gone into
bankruptcy during these frightful years to have done so at
once.

Question. What will be the political effect of the Green
back movement ?

Answer. The effect in Maine has been to defeat the
Republican party. I do not believe any party can per
manently succeed in the United States that does not believe
in and advocate actual money. I want to see the green
back equal with gold the world round. A money below
par keeps the people below par. No man can possibly be
proud of a country that is not willing to pay its debts.
Several of the States this fall may be carried by the Green
back party, but if I have a correct understanding of their
views, that party cannot hold any State for any great
length of time. But all the men of wealth should remem
ber that everybody in the community has got, in some way,
to be supported. I want to see them so that they can sup
port themselves by their own labor. In my judgment real
prosperity will begin with actual resumption, because con
fidence will then return. If the workingmen of the United
States cannot make their living, cannot have the oppor
tunity to labor, they have got to be supported in some way,
and in any event, I want to see a liberal policy inaugurated
by the Government. I believe in improving rivers and
harbors.

I do not believe the trans-continental commerce of
this country should depend on one railroad. I want new
territories opened. I want to see American steamships
running to all the great ports of the world. I want to see
our flag flying on all the seas and in all the harbors. We
have the best country, and, in my judgment, the best peo
ple in the world, and we ought to be the most prosperous
nation on the earth.

8 INTERVIEWS.

Question. Then you only consider the Greenback move
ment a temporary thing ?

Answer. Yes ; I do not believe that there is anything
permanent in anything that is not sound, that has not a
perfectly sound foundation, and I mean sound, sound in
every sense of that word. It must be wise and honest. We
have plenty of money ; the trouble is to get it. If these
Greenbackers will pass a law furnishing all of us with col
laterals, there certainly would be no trouble about getting
the money. Nothing can demonstrate more fully the
plentifulness of money than the fact that millions of four
per cent, bonds have been taken in the United States. The
trouble is, business is scarce.

Question. But do you not think the Greenback movement
will help the Democracy to success in 1880?

Answer. I think the Greenback movement will injure
the Republican party much more than the Democratic
party. Whether that injury will reach as far as 1880
depends simply upon one thing. If resumption- — in spite
of all resolutions to the contrary — inaugurates an era of
prosperity, as I believe and hope it will, then it seems to
me that the Republican party will be as strong in
the north as in its palmiest days. Of course I regard most
of the old issues as settled, and I make this statement
simply because I regard the financial issue as the only liv
ing one.

Of course, I have no idea who will be the Democratic
candidate, but I suppose the South will be solid for the
Democratic nominee, unless the financial question divides
that section of the country.

Question. With a solid South do you not think the
Democratic nominee will stand a good chance ?

Answer. Certainly, he will stand the best chance if the
Democracy is right on the financial question ; if it will
cling to its old idea of hard money, he will. If the Demo-

INTERVIEWS. 9

crats will recognize that the issues of the war are settled,
then I think that party has the best chance.

Question. But if it clings to soft money ?

Answer. Then I think it will be beaten, if by soft money
it means the payment of one promise with another.

Question. You consider Greenbackers inflationists, do you
not?

Answer. I suppose the Greenbackers to be the party of
inflation. I am in favor of inflation produced by industry.
I am in favor of the country being inflated with corn, with
wheat, good houses, books, pictures, and plenty of labor for
everybody. I am in favor of being inflated with gold and
silver, but I do not believe in the inflation of promise, ex
pectation and speculation. I sympathize with every man
who is willing to work and cannot get it, and I sympathize
to that degree that I would like to see the fortunate and
prosperous taxed to support his unfortunate brother until
labor could be found.

The Greenback party seems to think credit is just as
good as gold. While the credit lasts this is so ; but the
trouble is, whenever it is ascertained that the gold is gone
or cannot be produced the credit takes wings. The bill of
a perfectly solvent bank may circulate for years. Now,
because nobody demands the gold on that bill it doesn't
follow that the bill would be just as good without any
gold behind it. The idea that you can have the gold when
ever you present the bill gives it its value. To illustrate :
A poor man buys soup tickets. He is not hungry at the
time of the purchase, and will not be for some hours.
During these hours the Greenback gentlemen argue that
there is no use of keeping any soup on hand with which to
redeem these tickets, and from this they further argue that
if they can be good for a few hours without soup, why not
forever ? And the}' would be, only the holder gets hungry.
Until he is hungry, of course, he does not care whether

IO INTERVIEWS.

any soup is on hand or not, but when he presents his
ticket he wants his soup, and the idea that he can have the
soup when he does present the ticket gives it its value.
And so I regard bank notes, without gold and silver, as of
the same value as tickets without soup. — The Post, Washington,

D. C., 1878.

THE PRE-MILLENNIAL CONFERENCE.

Question. What do you think of the Pre-Millennial Con
ference that was held in New York City recently ?

Answer. Well, I think that all who attended it were be
lievers in the Bible, and any one who believes in prophe
cies and looks to their fulfillment will go insane. A man
that tries from Daniel's ram with three horns and five tails
and his deformed goats to ascertain the date of the second
immigration of Christ to this world is already insane. It
all shows that the moment we leave the realm of fact and
law we are adrift on the wide and shoreless sea of theolog
ical speculation.

Question. Do you think there will be a second coming?

Answer. No, not as long as the church is in power.
Christ will never again visit this earth until the Free
thinkers have control. He will certainly never allow
another church to get hold of him. The very persons
who met in New York to fix the date of his coming would
despise him and the feeling would probably be mutual.
In his day Christ was an Infidel, and made himself unpop
ular by denouncing the church as it then existed. He
called them liars, hypocrites, thieves, vipers, whited sep
ulchres and fools. From the description given of the church
in that day, I am afraid that should he come again, he
would be provoked into using similar language. Of course,
I admit there are many good people in the church, just as
there were some good Pharisees who were opposed to the

Crucifixion. — The Express, Buflalo, New York, Nov. 4th, 1878.

THE SOLID SOUTH AND RESUMPTION.

Question. Colonel, to start with, what do you think of the
solid South?

Answer. I think the South is naturally opposed to the
Republican party ; more, I imagine, to the name, than to
the personnel of the organization. But the South has
just as good friends in the Republican party as in the
Democratic party. I do not think there are any Repub
licans who would not rejoice to see the South prosperous
and happy. I know of none, at least. They will have to
get over the prejudices born of isolation. We lack direct
and constant communication. I do not recollect having
seen a newspaper from the Gulf States for a long time.
They, down there, may imagine that the feeling in the
North is the same as during the war. But it certainly is
not. The Northern people are anxious to be friendly;
and if they can be, without a violation of principles, they
will be. Whether it be true or not, however, most of the
Republicans of the North believe that no Republican in the
South is heartily welcome in that section, whether he goes
there from the North, or is a Southern man. Personally, I
do not care anything about partisan politics. I want to see
every man in the United States guaranteed the right to
express his choice at the ballot-box, and I do not want
social ostracism to follow a man, no matter how he may
vote. A solid South means a solid North. A hundred
thousand Democratic majority in South Carolina means
fifty thousand Republican majority in New York in 1880.
I hope the sections will never divide, simply as sections.

(ID

12 INTERVIEWS.

But if the Republican party is not allowed to live in the
South, the Democratic party certainly will not be allowed
to succeed in the North. I want to treat the people of the
South precisely as though the Rebellion had never oc
curred. I want all that wiped from the slate of memory,
and all I ask of the Southern people is to give the same
i ights to the Republicans that we are willing to give to
them and have given to them.

Question. How do you account for the results of the
recent elections?

Answer. The Republican party won the recent election
simply because it was for honest money, and it was in
favor of resumption. And if on the first of January next,
we resume all right, and maintain resumption, I see no
reason why the Republican party should' not succeed in
1880. The Republican party came into power at the com
mencement of the Rebellion, and necessarily retained power
until its close; and in my judgment, it will retain power
so long as in the horizon of credit there is a cloud of re
pudiation as large as a man's hand

Question. Do you think resumption will work out all right ?

Answer. I do. I think that on the first of January the green
back will shake hands with gold on an equality, and in a
few days thereafter will be worth just a little bit more.
Everything has resumed, except the Government. All the
property has resumed, all the lands, bonds and mortgages
and stocks. All these things resumed long ago — that is to
say, they have touched the bottom. Now, there is no doubt
that the party that insists on the Government paying all its
debts will hold control, and no one will get his hand on the
wheel who advocates repudiation in any form. There is one
thing we must do, though. We have got to put more silver
in our dollars. I do not think you can blame the New York
oanks— any bank — for refusing to take eighty-eight cents
for a dollar. Neither can you blame any depositor who puts

INTERVIEWS. 13

gold in bank for demanding gold in return. Yes, we must
have in the silver dollar a dollar's worth of silver. — The Com~

mercial, Cincinnati, Ohio, November, 1878.

THE SUNDAY LAWS OF PITTSBURGH

Question. Colonel, what do you think of the course the
Mayor has pursued toward you in attempting to stop your
lecture ?

Answer. I know very little except what I have seen in
the morning paper. As a general rule, laws should be en
forced or repealed ; and so far as I am personally concerned,
I shall not so much complain of the enforcing of the law
against Sabbath breaking as of the fact that such a law
exists. We have fallen heir to these laws. They were
passed by superstition, and the enlightened people of to
day should repeal them. Ministers should not expect to
fill their churches by shutting up other places. They can
only increase their congregations by improving their ser
mons. They will have more hearers when they say more
worth hearing. I have no idea that the Mayor has any
prej udice against me personally and if he only enforces the
law, I shall have none against him. If my lectures were
free the ministers might have the right to object, but as I
charge one dollar admission and they nothing, they ought
certainly to be able to compete with me.

Question. Don't you think it is the duty of the Mayor, as
chief executive of the city laws, to enforce the ordinances
and pay no attention to what the statutes say ?

Answer. I suppose it to be the duty of the Mayor to en
force the ordinance of the city and if the ordinance of the
city covers the same ground as the law of the State, a con
viction under the ordinance would be a bar to a prosecu
tion under the State law.

* The manager of the theatre, where Col. Ingersoll lectured, was fined fifty dollars
which Col. Ingersoll paid.

14 INTERVIEWS.

Question. If the ordinance exempts scientific, literary
and historical lectures, as it is said it does, will not that
exempt you ?

Answer. Yes, all my lectures are historical ; that is, I
speak of many things that have happened. They are
scientific because they are filled with facts, and they are
literary of course. I can conceive of no address that is
neither historical nor scientific, except sermons. They fail
to be historical because they treat of things that never
happened and they are certainly not scientific, as they con
tain no facts.

Question. Suppose they arrest you what will you do ?

Answer. I will examine the law and if convicted will pay
the fine, unless I think I can reverse the case by appeal. Of
course I would like to see all these foolish laws wiped from
the statute books. I want the law so that everybody can
do just as he pleases on Sunday, provided he does not in
terfere with the rights of others. I want the Christian, the
Jew, the Deist and the Atheist to be exactly equal before
the law. I would fight for the right of the Christian to
worship God in his own way just as quick as I would for
the Atheist to enjoy music, flowers and fields. I hope to
see the time when even the poor people can hear the music
of the finest operas on Sunday. One grand opera with all
its thrilling tones, will do more good in touching and ele
vating the world than ten thousand sermons on the agonies
of hell.

Question. Have you ever been interfered with before in
delivering Sunday lectures ?

Answer. No, I postponed a lecture in Baltimore at the
request of the owners of the theatre because they were
afraid some action might be taken. That is the only case.
I have delivered lectures on Sunday in the principal cities
of the United States, in New York, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago,
San Francisco, Cincinnati and many other places. I lee-

INTERVIEWS. 15

tured here last winter; it was on Sunday and I heard
nothing of its being contrary to law. I always supposed
my lectures were good enough to be delivered on the most

Sacred days. — The Leader •, Pittsburg, Pa., October 27, 1879.

POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS.

Question. What do you think about the recent election,
and what will be its effect upon political matters and the
issues and candidates of 1880 ?

Answer. I think the Republicans have met with this
almost universal success on account, first, of the position
taken by the Democracy on the currency question ; that is to
say, that party was divided, and was willing to go in part
nership with anybody, whatever their doctrines might be,
for the sake of success in that particular locality. The
Republican party felt it of paramount importance not only
to pay the debt, but to pay it in that which the world regards
as money. The next reason for the victory is the position
assumed by the Democracy in Congress during the called
session. The threats they then made of what they would
do in the event that the executive did not comply with their
demands, showed that the spirit of that party had not been
chastened to any considerable extent by the late war. The
people of this country will not, in my judgment, allow the
South to take charge of this country until they show their
ability to protect the rights of citizens in their respective
States.

Question. Then, as you regard the victories, they are
largely due to a firm adherence to principle, and the failure
of the Democratic party is due to their abandonment of
principle, and their desire to unite with anybody and every
thing, at the sacrifice of principle, to attain success ?

Answer. Yes. The Democratic party is a general desire
fpr office without organization. Most people are Democrats

1 6 INTERVIEWS.

because they hate something, most people are Republicans
because they love something.

Question. Do you think the election has brought about
any particular change in the issues that will be involved in
the campaign of 1880 ?

Answer. I think the only issue is who shall rule this
country.

Question. Do you think, then, the question of State Rights,
hard or soft money and other questions that have been
prominent in the campaign are practically settled, and so
regarded by the people ?

Answer. I think the money question is, absolutely. I
think the question of State Rights is dead, except that it can
still be used to defeat the Democracy. It is what might be
called a convenient political corpse.

Question. Now, to leave the political field and go to the
religious at one jump — since your last visit here much has
been said and written and published to the effect that a great
change, or a considerable change at least, had taken place in
your religious, or irreligious views. I would like to know
if that is so ?

Answer. The only change that has occurred in my relig
ious views is the result of finding more and more arguments
in favor of my position, and, as a consequence, if there is
any difference, I am stronger in my convictions than ever
before.

Question. I would like to know something of the history
of your religious views ?

Answer. I may say right here that the Christian idea that
any God can make me his friend by killing mine is about as
great a mistake as could be made. They seem to have the
idea that just as soon as God kills all the people that a per
son loves, he will then begin to love the Lord. What drew
my attention first to these questions was the doctrine of eter
nal punishment. This was so abhorrent to my mind that I

INTERVIEWS. 17

began to hate the book in which it was taught Then, in
reading law, going back to find the origin of laws, I found
one had to go but a little way before the legislator and priest
united. This led me to study a good many of the religions
of the world. At first I was greatly astonished to find most
of them better than ours. I then studied our own system to
the best of my ability, and found that people were palming
off upon children and upon one another as the inspired
word of God a book that upheld slavery, polygamy and al
most every other crime. Whether I am right or wrong, I
became convinced that the Bible is not an inspired book ;
and then the only question for me to settle was as to whether
I should say what I believed or not. This really was not
the question in my mind, because, before even thinking of
such a question, I expressed my belief, and I simply claim
that right and expect to exercise it as long as I live. I may
be damned for it in the next world, but it is a great source
of pleasure to me in this.

Question. It is reported that you are the son of a Presby
terian minister ?

Answer. Yes, I am the son of a New School Presbyterian
minister.

Question. About what age were you when you began this
investigation which led to your present convictions ?

Answer. I cannot remember when I believed the Bible
doctrine of eternal punishment. I have a dim recollection
of hating Jehovah when I was exceedingly small.

Question. Then your present convictions began to form
themselves while you were listening to the teachings of re
ligion as taught by your father ?

Answer. Yes, they did.

Question. Did you discuss the matter with him ?

Answer. I did for many years, and before he died he utterly
gave up the idea that this life is a period of probation. He
utterly gave up the idea of eternal punishment, and before

1 8 INTERVIEWS.

he died he had the happiness of believing that God was al
most as good and generous as he was himself.

Question. I suppose this gossip about a change in your
religious views arose or was created by the expression used
at your brother's funeral, " In the night of death hope sees
a star and listening love can hear the rustle of a wing " ?

Answer. I never willingly will destroy a solitary human
hope. I have always said that I did not know whether man
was or was not immortal, but years before my brother died,
in a lecture entitled " The Ghosts," which has since been
published, I used the following words : " The idea of im
mortality, that like a sea has ebbed and flowed in the hu
man heart, with its countless waves of hope and fear, beat
ing against the shores and rocks of time and fate, was not
born of any book, nor of any creed, nor of any religion. It
was born of human affection, and it will continue to ebb and
flow beneath the mists and clouds of doubt and darkness as
long as love kisses the lips of death. It is the rainbow —
Hope, shining upon the tears of grief."

Question. The great objection to your teaching urged by
your enemies is that you constantly tear down, and never
build up?

Answer. I have just published a little book entitled,
"Some Mistakes of Moses," in which I have endeavored to
give most of the arguments I have urged against the Penta
teuch in a lecture I delivered under that title. The motto
on the title page is, " A destroyer of weeds, thistles and
thorns is a benefactor, whether he soweth grain or not." I
cannot for my life see why one should be charged with
tearing down and not rebuilding simply because he exposes
a sham, or detects a lie. I do not feel under any obligation
to build something in the place of a detected falsehood.
All I think I am under obligation to put in the place of a
detected lie is the detection. Most religionists talk as if
mistakes were valuable things and they did not wish to

INTERVIEWS. 19

part with them without a consideration. Just how much
they regard lies worth a dozen I do not know. If the price
is reasonable I am perfectly willing to give it, rather than
to see them live and give their lives to the defence of de
lusions. I am firmly convinced that to be happy here will
not in the least detract from our happiness in another world
should we be so fortunate as to reach another world ; and I
cannot see the'value of any philosophy that reaches beyond
the intelligent happiness of the present. There may be a
God who will make us happy in another world. If he does,
it will be more than he has accomplished in this. I sup
pose that he will never have more than infinite power and
never have less than infinite wisdom, and why people
should expect that he should do better in another world
than he has in this is something that I have never been
able to explain. A being who has the power to prevent it
and yet who allows thousands and millions of his children
to starve ; who devours them with earthquakes ; who al
lows whole nations to be enslaved, cannot in my judgment
be implicitly depended upon to do justice in another world.

Question. How do the clergy generally treat you ?

Answer. Well, of course there are the same distinctions
among clergymen as among other people. Some of them
are quite respectable gentlemen, especially those with whom
I am not acquainted. I think that since the loss of my
brother nothing could exceed the heartlessness of the re
marks made by the average clergyman. There have been
some noble exceptions, to whom I feel not only thankful
but grateful ; but a very large majority have taken this
occasion to say most unfeeling and brutal things. I do not
ask the clergy to forgive me, but I do request that they
will so act that I will not have to forgive them. I have
always insisted that those who love their enemies should at
least tell the truth about their friends, but I suppose, after
all, that religion must be supported by the same means as

20 INTERVIEWS.

those by which it was founded. Of course, there are thou
sands of good ministers, men who are endeavoring to make
the world better, and whose failure is no particular fault of
their own. I have always been in doubt as to whether the
clergy were a necessary or an unnecessary evil.

Question. I would like to have a positive expression of
your views as to a future state ?

Answer. Somebody asked Confucius about another world,
and his reply was : " How should I know anything about
another world when I know so little of this ? " For my
part, I know nothing of any other state of existence, either
before or after this, and I have never become personally
acquainted with anybody that did. There may be another
life, and if there is, the best way to prepare for it is by
making somebody happy in this. God certainly cannot
afford to put a man in hell who has made a little heaven in
this world. I propose simply to take my chances with the
rest of the folks, and prepare to go where the people I am
best acquainted with will probably settle. I cannot afford
to leave the great ship and sneak off to shore in some ortho
dox canoe. I hope there is another life, for I would like to
see how things come out in this world when I am dead.
There are some people I would like to see again, and hope
there are some who would not object to seeing me ; but if
there is no other life I shall never know it. I do not re
member a time when I did not exist; and, if, when I die,
that is the end, I shall not know it, because the last thing I
shall know is that I am alive, and if nothing is left, nothing
will be left to know that I am dead ; so that so far as I am
concerned I am immortal ; that is to say, I cannot recollect
when I did not exist, and there never will be a time when
I shall remember that I do not exist. I would like to have
several millions of dollars, and I may say that I have a
lively hope that some day I may be rich, but to tell you
the truth I have very little evidence of it. Our hope of

INTERVIEWS. 21

immortality does not come from any religion, but nearly
all religions come from that hope. The Old Testament, in
stead of telling us that we are immortal, tells us how we
lost immortality. You will recollect that if Adam and Eve
could have gotten to the Tree of Life, they would have eaten
of its fruit and would have lived forever ; but for the pur
pose of preventing immortality God turned them out of the
Garden of Eden, and put certain angels with swords or
sabres at the gate to keep them from getting back. The
Old Testament proves, if it proves anything — which I do
not think it does — that there is no life after this ; and the
New Testament is not very specific on the subject. There
were a great many opportunities for the Savior and his
apostles to tell us about another world, but they did not
improve them to any great extent ; and the only evidence,
so far as I know, about another life is, first, that we have
no evidence ; and secondly, that we are rather sorry that we
have not, and wish we had. That is about my position.

Question. According to your observation of men, and
your reading in relation to the men and women of the
world and of the church, if there is another world divided
according to orthodox principles between the orthodox and
heterodox, which of the two that are known as heaven and
hell would contain, in your judgment, the most good
society ?

Answer. Since hanging has got to be a means of grace,
I would prefer hell. I had a thousand times rather asso
ciate with the Pagan philosophers than with the inquisitors
of the Middle Ages. I certainly should prefer the worst
man in Greek or Roman history to John Calvin ; and I
can imagine no man in the world that I would not rather
sit on the same bench with than the Puritan fathers and the
founders of orthodox churches. I would trade off my
harp any minute for a seat in the other country. All
the poets will be in perdition, and the greatest thinkers,

22 INTERVIEWS.

and, I should think, most of the women whose society would
tend to increase the happiness of man; nearly all the painters,
nearly all the sculptors, nearly all the writers of plays,
nearly all the great actors, most of the best musicians, and
nearly all the good fellows — the persons who know stories,
who can sing songs, or who will loan a friend a dollar. They
will mostly all be in that country, and if I did not live there
permanently, I certainly would want it so I could spend my
winter months there. But, after all, what I really want to
do is to destroy the idea of eternal punishment. That doc
trine subverts all ideas of justice. That doctrine fills hell
with honest men, and heaven with intellectual and moral
paupers. That doctrine allows people to sin on a credit.
That doctrine allows the basest to be eternally happy and
the most honorable to suffer eternal pain. I think of all
doctrines it is the most infinitely infamous, and would dis
grace the lowest savage ; and any man who believes it, and
has imagination enough to understand it, has the heart of a
serpent and the conscience of a hyena.

Question. Your objective point is to destroy the doctrine
of hell, is it ?

Answer. Yes, because the destruction of that doctrine will
do away with all cant and all pretence. It will do away
with all religious bigotry and persecution. It will allow
every man to think and to express his thought. It will do
away with bigotry in all its slimy and offensive forms. —

Chicago Times, November 14, 1879.

POLITICS AND GEN. GRANT.

Question. Some people have made comparisons between
the late Senators O. P. Morton and Zach. Chandler. What
did you think of them, Colonel ?

Answer. I think Morton had the best intellectual grasp of
a question of any man I ever saw. There was an infinite
difference between the two men. Morton's strength lay in

INTERVIEWS. $3

proving a thing ; Chandler's in asserting it. But Chandler
was a strong man and no hypocrite.

Question. Have you any objection to being interviewed
as to your ideas of Grant, and his position before the people?

Answer. I have no reason for withholding my views on
that or any other subject that is under public discussion.
My idea is that Grant can afford to regard the presidency
as a broken toy. It would add nothing to his fame if he
were again elected, and would add nothing to the debt of
gratitude which the people feel they owe him. I do not
think he will be a candidate. I do not think he wants it.
There are men who are pushing him on their own account.
Grant was a great soldier. He won the respect of the civi
lized world. He commanded the largest army that ever
fought for freedom, and to make him President would not
add a solitary leaf to the wreath of fame already on his
brow ; and should he be elected, the only thing he could do
would be to keep the old wreath from fading.

I do not think his reputation can ever be as great in any
direction as in the direction of war. He has made his repu
tation and has lived his great life. I regard him, confessedly,
as the best soldier the Anglo-Saxon blood has produced. I
do not know that it necessarily follows because he is a
great soldier he is great in other directions. Probably some
of the greatest statesmen in the world would have made
the worst soldiers.

Question. Do you regard him as more popular now than
ever before ?

Answer. I think that his reputation is certainly greater
and higher than when he left the presidency, and mainly
because he has represented this country with so much dis
cretion and with such quiet, poised dignity all around tfce
world. He has measured himself with kings, and v/as able
to look over the heads of every one of them. They were
not quite as tall as he was, even adding the crown to their

24 INTERVIEWS.

original height. I think he represented us abroad with
wonderful success. One thing that touched me very much
was, that at a reception given him by the workingmen of
Birmingham, after he had been received by royalty, he had
the courage to say that that reception gave him more
pleasure than any other. He has been throughout perfectly
true to the genius of our institutions, and has not upon
any occasion exhibited the slightest toadyism. Grant is a
man who is not greatly affected by either flattery or abuse.

Question. What do you believe to be his position in regard
to the presidency ?

Answer. My own judgment is that he does not care. I
do not think he has any enemies to punish, and I think that
while he was President he certainly rewarded most of his
friends.

Question. What are your views as to a third term ?

Answer. I have no objection to a third term on principle,
but so many men want the presidency that it seems almost
cruel to give a third term to anyone.

Question. Then, if there is no objection to a third term,
what about a fourth ?

Answer. I do not know that that could be objected to,
either. We have to admit, after all, that the American
people, or at least a majority of them, have a right to elect
one man as often as they please. Personally, I think it
should not be done unless in the case of a man who is
prominent above the rest of his fellow-citizens, and whose
election appears absolutely necessary. But I frankly confess
I cannot conceive of any political situation where one man
is a necessity. I do not believe in the one-man-on-horse-
back idea, because I believe in all the people being on horse
back.

Question. What will be the effect of the enthusiastic re
ceptions that are being given to General Grant ?

Answer. I think these ovations show that the people are

INTERVIEWS. 25

resolved not to lose the results of the great victories of the
war, and that they make known this determination by their
attention to General Grant. I think that if he goes through
the principal cities of this country the old spirit will be
revived everywhere, and whether it makes him President or
not the result will be to make the election go Republican.
The revival of the memories of the war will bring the people
of the North together as closely as at any time since that
great conflict closed, not in the spirit of hatred, or malice
or envy, but in generous emulation to preserve that which
was fairly won. I do not think there is any hatred about
it, but we are beginning to see that we must save the South
ourselves, and that that is the only way we can save the
nation.

Question. But suppose they give the same receptions in
the South?

Answer. So much the better.

Question. Is there any split in the solid South ?

Answer. Some of the very best people in the South are
apparently disgusted with following the Democracy any
longer, and would hail with delight any opportunity they
could reasonably take advantage of to leave the organiza
tion, if they could do so without making it appear that they
were going back on Southern interests, and this opportunity
will come when the South becomes enlightened, and sees
that it has no interests except in common with the whole
country. That I think they are beginning to see.

Question. How do you like the administration of President
Hayes ?

Answer. I think its attitude has greatly improved of late.
There are certain games of cards — pedro for instance, where
you can not only fail to make something, but be set back. I
think that Hayes's veto messages very nearly got him back
to the commencement of the game — that he is now almost
ready to commence counting, and make some points. His

26 INTERVIEWS.

position before the country has greatly improved, but he
will not develop into a dark horse. My preference, is of
course, still for Elaine.

Question. Where do you think it is necessary the Republi
can candidate should come from to insure success ?

Answer. Somewhere out of Ohio. I think it will go to
Maine, and for this reason : first of all, Elaine is certainly a
competent man of affairs, a man who knows what to do at
the time ; and then he has acted in such a chivalric way
ever since the convention at Cincinnati, that those who
opposed him most bitterly, now have for him nothing but
admiration. I think John Sherman is a man of decided
ability, but I do not believe the American people would
make one brother President, while the other is General of
the Army. It would be giving too much power to one
family.

Question. What are your conclusions as to the future of
the Democratic party ?

Answer. I think the Democratic party ought to disband.
I think they would be a great deal stronger disbanded, be
cause they would get rid of their reputation without de
creasing.

Question. But if they will not disband ?

Answer. Then the next campaign depends undoubtedly
upon New York and Indiana. I do not see how they can
very well help nominating a man from Indiana, and by that
I mean Hendricks. You see the South has one hundred
and thirty-eight votes, all supposed to be Democratic ; with
the thirty-five from New York and fifteen from Indiana
they would have just three to spare. Now, I take it, that
the fifteen from Indiana are just about as essential as the
thirty-five from New York. To lack fifteen votes is nearly
as bad as being thirty-five short, and so far as drawing
salary is concerned it is quite as bad. Mr. Hendricks
ought to know that he holds the key to Indiana, and that

INTERVIEWS. 27

there cannot be any possibility of carrying this State for
Democracy without him. He has tried running for the
vice-presidency, which is not much of a place anyhow —
I would about as soon be vice-mother-in-law — and my
judgment is that he knows exactly the value of his geo
graphical position. New York is divided to that degree
that it would be unsafe to take a candidate from that State ;
and besides, New York has become famous for furnishing
defeated candidates for the Democracy. I think the man
must come from Indiana.

Question. Would the Democracy of New York unite on
Seymour ?

Answer. You recollect what Lincoln said about the
powder that had been shot off once. I do not remember
any man who has once made a race for the presidency and
been defeated ever being again nominated.

Question. What about Bayard and Hancock as candidates?

Answer. I do not see how Bayard could possibly carry
Indiana, while his own State is too small and too solidly
Democratic. My idea of Bayard is that he has not been
good enough to be popular, and not bad enough to be
famous. The American people will never elect a President
from a State with a whipping-post. As" to General Han
cock, you may set it down as certain that the South will
never lend their aid to elect a man who helped to put down
the Rebellion. It would be just the same as the effort to
elect Greeley. It cannot be done. I see, by the way, that
I am reported as having said that David Davis, as the
Democratic candidate, could carry Illinois. I did say that
in 1876, he could have carried it against Hayes; but
whether he could carry Illinois in 1880 would depend al
together upon who runs against him. The condition of
things has changed greatly in our favor since iBj6.—TAejour-

nal, Indianapolis, Ind., November, 1879.

POLITICS, RELIGION AND THOMAS PAINE.

Question. You have traveled about this State more or less,
lately, and have, of course, observed political affairs here.
Do you think that Senator Logan will be able to deliver
this State to the Grant movement according to the under
stood plan ?

Answer. If the State is really for Grant, he will, and if
it is not, he will not. Illinois is as little " owned " as any
State in this Union. Illinois would naturally be for Grant,
other things being equal, because he is regarded as a citizen
of this State, and it is very hard for a State to give up the
patronage naturally growing out of the fact that the Presi
dent comes from that State.

Question. Will the instructions given to delegates be final ?

Answer. I do not think they will be considered final at all ;
neither do I think they will be considered of any force. It
was decided at the last convention, in Cincinnati, that the
delegates had a right to vote as they pleased ; that each dele
gate represented the district of his State that sent him. The
idea that a State convention can instruct them as against the
wishes of their constituents smacks a little too much of State
sovereignty. The President should be nominated by the
districts of the whole country, and not by massing the votes
by a little chicanery at a State convention, and every dele
gate ought to vote what he really believes to be the sentiment
of his constituents, irrespective of what the State conven
tion may order him to do. He is not responsible to the
State convention, and it is none of the State convention's
business. This does not apply, it may be, to the delegates
at large, but to all the others it certainly must apply. It
was so decided at the Cincinnati convention, and decided on
a question arising about this same Pennsylvania delegation.

INTERVIEWS. 29

Question. Can you guess as to what the platform is going
to contain ?

Answer. I suppose it will be a substantial copy of the old
one. I am satisfied with the old one with one addition. I
want a plank to the effect that no man shall be deprived of
any civil or political right on account of his religious or
irreligious opinions. The Republican party having been
foremost in freeing the body ought to do just a little some
thing now for the mind. After having wasted rivers of
blood and treasure uncounted, and almost uncountable, to
free the cage, I propose that something ought to be done for
the bird. Every decent man in the United States would
support that plank. People should have a right to testify in
courts, whatever their opinions may be, on any subject.
Justice should not shut any door leading to truth, and as
long as just views neither affect a man's eyesight or his
memory, he should be allowed to tell his story. And there
are two sides to this question, too. The man is not only de
prived of his testimony, but the commonwealth is deprived
of it. There should be no religious test in this country for
office; and if Jehovah cannot support his religion \\itiiout
going into partnership with a State Legislature, I think he
ought to give it up.

Question. Is there anything new about religion since you
were last here ?

Answer. Since I was here I have spoken in a great many
cities, and to-morrow I am going to do some missionary
work at Milwaukee. Many who have come to scoff have
remained to pray, and I think that my labors are being great
ly blessed, and all attacks on me so far have been overruled
for good. I happened to come in contact with a revival of
religion, and I believe what they call an " outpouring " at
Detroit, under the leadership of a gentleman by the name of
Pentecost. He denounced me as God's greatest enemy. I
had always supposed that the Devil occupied that exalted

30 INTERVIEWS.

position, but it seems that I have, in some way, fallen heir
to his shoes. Mr. Pentecost also denounced all business
men who would allow any advertisements or lithographs of
mine to hang in their places of business, and several of the
gentlemen thus appealed to took the advertisements away.
The result of all this was that I had the largest house that
ever attended a lecture in Detroit. Feeling that ingratitude
is a crime, I publicly returned thanks to the clergy for the
pains they had taken to give me an audience. And I may
say, in this connection, that if the ministers do God as little
good as they do me harm, they had better let both of us
alone. I regard them as very good, but exceedingly mis
taken men. They do not come much in contact with the
world, and get most of their views by talking with the
women and children of their congregations. They are not
permitted to mingle freely with society. They cannot at
tend plays nor hear operas. I believe some of them have ven
tured to minstrel shows and menageries, where they confine
themselves strictly to the animal part of the entertainment.
But, as a rule, they have very few opportunities of ascertain
ing what the real public opinion is. They read religious
papers, edited by gentlemen who know as little about the
world as themselves, and the result of all this is that they
are rather behind the times. They are good men, and would
like to do right if they only knew it, but they are a little be
hind the times. There is an old story told of a fellow who
had a post-office in a small town in North Carolina, and be
ing the only man in the town who could read, a few people
used to gather in the post-office on Sunday, and he would
read to them a weekly paper that was published in Wash
ington. He commenced always at the top of the first column
and read right straight through, articles, advertisements, and
all, and whenever they got a little tired of reading he would
make a mark of red ochre and commence at that place the
next Sunday. The result was that the papers came a great

INTERVIEWS. 31

deal faster than he read them, and it was about 1817 when
they struck the war of 1812. The moment they got to that,
every one of them jumped up and offered to volunteer. All
of which shows that they were patriotic people, but a little
slow, and somewhat behind the times.

Question. How were you pleased with the Paine meeting
here, and its results ?

Answer. I was gratified to see so many people willing at
last to do justice to a great and a maligned man. Of course
I do not claim that Paine was perfect. All I claim is that
he was a patriot and a political philosopher ; that he was a
revolutionist and an agitator ; that he was infinitely full of
suggestive thought, and that he did more than any man to
convince the people of America not only that they ought to
separate from Great Britain, but that they ought to found a
representative government. He has been despised simply
because he did not believe the Bible. I wish to do what I
can to rescue his name from theological defamation. I
think the day has come when Thomas Paine will be remem
bered with Washington, Franklin and Jefferson, and that
the American people will wonder that their fathers could

have been guilty of such base ingratitude. — Chicago Times, Feb
ruary 8, 1880.

REPLY TO CHICAGO CRITICS.

Question. Have you read the replies of the clergy to
your recent lecture in this city on " What Must we do to
be Saved? " and if so what do you think of them?

Answer. I think they dodge the point. The real point
is this : If salvation by faith is the real doctrine of Chris
tianity, I asked on Sunday before last, and I still ask, why
didn't Matthew tell it ? I still insist that Mark should have
remembered it, and I shall always believe that Luke ought,
at least, to have noticed it. I was endeavoring to show
that modern Christianity has for its basis an interpolation.

32 INTERVIEWS.

I think I showed it. The only gospel on the orthodox
side is that of John, and that was certainly not written, or
did not appear in its present form, until long after the
others were written.

I know very well that the Catholic Church claimed dur
ing the Dark Ages, and still claims, that references had
been made to the gospels by persons living in the first,
second, and third centuries ; but I believe such manuscripts
were manufactured by the Catholic Church. For many
years in Europe there was not one person in twenty thou
sand who could read and write. During that time the
church had in its keeping the literature of our world.
They interpolated as they pleased. They created. They
destroyed. In other words, they did whatever in their
opinion was necessary to substantiate the faith.

The gentlemen who saw fit to reply did not answer the
question, and I again call upon the clergy to explain to the
people why, if salvation depends upon belief on the Lord
Jesus Christ, Matthew didn't mention it. Some one has
said that Christ didn't make known this doctrine of salva
tion by belief or faith until after his resurrection. Cer
tainly none of the gospels were written until after his
resurrection ; and if he made that doctrine known after his
resurrection, and before his ascension, it should have been
in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as in John.

The replies of the clergy show that they have not in
vestigated the subject ; that they are not well acquainted
with the New Testament. In other words, they have not
read it except with the regulation theological bias.

There is one thing I wish to correct here. In an editorial
in the Tribune it was stated that I had admitted that Christ
was beyond and above Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucius, and
others. I did not say so. Another point was made against
me, and those who made it seemed to think it was a good
one. In my lecture I asked why it was that the disciples

INTERVIEWS. 33

of Christ wrote in Greek, whereas, in fact, they understood
only Hebrew. It is now claimed that Greek was the
language of Jerusalem at that time ; that Hebrew had
fallen into disuse; that no one understood it except the
literati and the highly educated. If I fell into an error
upon this point it was because I relied upon the New
Testament. I find in the twenty-first chapter of the Acts
an account of Paul having been mobbed in the city of
Jerusalem ; that he was protected by a chief captain and
some soldiers; that, while upon the stairs of the castle to
which he was being taken for protection, he obtained leave
from the captain to speak unto the people. In the fortieth
verse of that chapter I find the following :

"And when he had given him license, Paul stood on the stairs and
beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made
a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,"

And then follows the speech of Paul, wherein he gives
an account of his conversion. It seems a little curious
to me that Paul, for the purpose of quieting a mob, would
speak to that mob in an unknown language. If I were
mobbed in the city of Chicago, and wished to defend my
self with an explanation, I certainly would not make that
explanation in Choctaw, even if I understood that tongue.
My present opinion is that I would speak in English ; and
the reason I would speak in English is because that
language is generally understood in this city, and so I
conclude from the account in the twenty-first chapter of
the Acts that Hebrew was the language of Jerusalem at that
time, or that Paul would not have addressed the mob in that
tongue.

Question. Did you read Mr. Courtney's answer ?

Answer. I read what Mr. Courtney read from others, and
think some of his quotations very good ; and have no
doubt that the authors will feel complimented by being
quoted. There certainly is no need of my answering Dr,

34 INTERVIEWS.

Courtney ; sometime I may answer the French gentlemen
from whom he quoted.

Question. But what about there being " belief " in
Matthew ?

Answer. Mr. Courtney says that certain people were cured
of diseases on account of faith. Admitting that mumps,
measles, and whooping-cough could be cured in that way,
there is not even a suggestion that salvation depended
upon a like faith. I think he can hardly afford to rely
upon the miracles of the New Testament to prove his
doctrine. There is one instance in which a miracle was
performed by Christ without his knowledge ; and I hardly
think that even Mr. Courtney would insist that any faith
could have been great enough for that. The fact is, I
believe that all these miracles were ascribed to Christ long
after his death, and that Christ never, at any time or place,
pretended to have any supernatural power whatever.
Neither do I believe that he claimed any supernatural
origin. He claimed simply to be a man ; no less, no more.
I do not believe Mr. Courtney is satisfied with his own reply.

Question. And now as to Prof. Swing ?

Answer. Mr. Swing has been out of the orthodox church
so long that he seems to have forgotten the reasons for
which he left it. I do not believe there is an orthodox
minister in the city of Chicago who will agree with Mr.
Swing that salvation by faith is no longer preached. Prof.
Swing seems to think it of no importance who wrote the
gospel of Matthew. In this I agree with him. Judging
from what he said there is hardly difference enough of
opinion between us to justify a reply on his part. He,
however, makes one mistake. I did not in the lecture say
one word about tearing down churches. I have no objec
tion to people building all the churches they wish. While
I admit that it is a pretty sight to see children on a morn
ing in June going through the fields to the country church.

INTERVIEWS. 35

I still insist that the beauty of that sight does not
answer the question how it is that Matthew forgot to say
anything about salvation through Christ. Prof. Swing is
a man of poetic temperament, but this is not a poetic
question.

Question. How did the card of Dr. Thomas strike you ?

Answer. I think the reply of Dr. Thomas is in the best
possible spirit. I regard him to-day as the best intellect in
the Methodist denomination. He seems to have what is
generally understood as a Christian spirit. He has always
treated me with perfect fairness, and I should have said
long ago many grateful things, had I not feared I might
hurt him with his own people. He seems to be by nature
a perfectly fair man ; and I know of no man in the United
States for whom I have a profounder respect. Of course, I
don't agree with Dr. Thomas. I think in many things he
is mistaken. But I believe him to be perfectly sincere.
There is one trouble about him — he is growing ; and this
fact will no doubt give great trouble to many of his
brethren. Certain Methodist hazel-brush feel a little un
easy in the shadow of this oak. To see the difference be
tween him and some others, all that is necessary is to read
his reply, and then read the remarks made at the Methodist
ministers' meeting on the Monday following. Compared
with Dr. Thomas, they are as puddles by the sea. There is
the same difference that there is between sewers and
rivers, cesspools and springs.

Question. What have you to say to the remarks of the
Rev. Dr. Jewett before the Methodist ministers' meeting ?

Answer. I think Dr. Jewett is extremely foolish. I did
not say that I would commence suit against a minister
for libel. I can hardly conceive of a proceeding that
would be less liable to produce a dividend. The fact about
it is, that the Rev. Mr. Jewett seems to think anything true
that he hears against me. Mr. Jewett is probably ashamed

36 INTERVIEWS.

of what he said by this time. He must have known it to
be entirely false. It seems to me by this time even the
most bigoted should lose their confidence in falsehood. Of
course there are times when a falsehood well told bridges
over quite a difficulty, but in the long run you had better
tell the truth, even if you swim the creek. I am astonished
that these ministers were willing to exhibit their wounds
to the world. I supposed of course I would hit some, but
I had no idea of wounding so many.

Question. Mr. Crafts stated that you were in the habit of
swearing in company and before your family ?

Answer. I often swear. In other words, I take the name
of God in vain : that is to say, I take it without any prac
tical thing resulting from it, and in that sense I think
most ministers are guilty of the same thing. I heard an
old story of a clergyman who rebuked a neighbor for
swearing, to whom the neighbor replied, " You pray and I
swear, but as a matter of fact neither of us means anything
by it." As to the charge that I am in the habit of using
indecent language in my family, no reply is needed. I am
willing to leave that question to the people who know us
both. Mr. Crafts says he was told this by a lady. This
cannot by any possibility be true, for no lady will tell a
falsehood. Besides, if this woman of whom he speaks was
a lady, how did she happen to stay where obscene language
was being used ? No lady ever told Mr. Crafts any such
thing. It may be that a lady did tell him that I used pro
fane language. I admit that I have not always spoken of
the Devil in a respectful way ; that I have sometimes
referred to his residence when it was not a necessary part
of the conversation, and that at divers times I have used a
good deal of the terminology of the theologian when the
exact words of the scientist might have done as well. But
if by swearing is meant the use of God's name in vain,
there are very few preachers who do not swear more than

INTERVIEWS. 37

I do, if by " in vain " is meant without any practical result.
I leave Mr. Crafts to cultivate the acquaintance of the un
known lady, knowing as I do, that after they have talked
this matter over again they will find that both have been
mistaken.

I sincerely regret that clergymen who really believe that
an infinite God is on their side think it necessary to resort
to such things to defeat one man. According to their idea,
God is against me, and they ought to have confidence
enough in his infinite wisdom and strength to suppose that
he could; dispose of one man, even if they failed to say a
word agfinst me. Had you not asked me I should have
said nothing upon these topics. Such charges cannot hurt
me. I do not believe it possible for such men to injure
me. No one believes what they say, and the testimony of
such clergymen against an Infidel is no longer considered
of value. I believe it was Goethe who said, " I always
know that I am traveling when I hear the dogs bark."

Question. Are you going to make a formal reply to their
sermons ?

Answer. Not unless something better is done than has
been. Of course, I don't know what another Sabbath may
bring forth. I am waiting. But of one thing I feel per
fectly assured ; that no man in the United States, or in the
world, can account for the fact, if we are to be saved only
by faith in Christ, that Matthew forgot it, that Luke said
nothing about it, and that Mark never mentioned it except
in two passages written by another person. Until that is
answered, as one grave-digger says to the other in " Ham
let," I shall say, "Ay, tell me that and unyoke." In the
meantime I wish to keep on the best terms with all parties
concerned. I cannot see why my forgiving spirit fails to

gain their sincere praise. — Chicago Tribune, September 30, 1880.

THE REPUBLICAN VICTORY.

Question. Do you really think, Colonel, that the country
has just passed through a crisis ?

Answer. Yes; there was a crisis and a great one. The
question was whether a Northern or Southern idea of the
powers and duties of the Federal Government was to pre
vail. The great victory of yesterday means that the Rebellion
was not put down on the field of war alone, but that we have
conquered in the realm of thought. The bayonet has been
justified by argument. No party can ever succeed in this
country that even whispers " State Sovereignty." That doc
trine has become odious. The sovereignty of the State
means a Government without power, and citizens without
protection.

Question. Can you see any further significance in the
present Republican victory other than that the people do not
wish to change the general policy of the present adminis
tration ?

Answer. Yes ; the people have concluded that the lips of
America shall be free. There never was free speech at the
South, and there never will be until the people of that sec
tion admit that the Nation is superior to the State, and that
all citizens have equal rights. I know of hundreds who
voted the Republican ticket because they regarded the South
as hostile to free speech. The people were satisfied with the
financial policy of the Republicans, and they feared a change.
The North wants honest money — gold and silver. The peo
ple are in favor of honest votes, and they feared the prac
tices of the Democratic party. The tissue ballot and shot
gun policy made them hesitate to put power in the hands of
the South. Besides, the tariff question made thousands and
thousands of votes. As long as Europe has slave labor, and

(33)

INTERVIEWS. 39

wherever kings and priests rule, the laborer will be sub
stantially a slave. We must protect ourselves. If the world
were free, trade would be free, and the seas would be the
free highways of the world. The great objects of the Re
publican party are to preserve all the liberty we have, pro
tect American labor, and to make it the undisputed duty of
the Government to protect every citizen at home and abroad.
The Republican party intends to civilize this country.

Question. What do you think was the main cause of the
Republican sweep ?

Answer. The wisdom of the Republicans and the mis
takes of the Democrats. The Democratic party has for
twenty years underrated the intelligence, the patriotism
and the honesty of the American people. That party has
always looked upon politics as a trade, and success as the
last act of a cunning trick. It has had no principles, fixed
or otherwise. It has always been willing to abandon every
thing but its prejudices. It generally commences where it
left off and then goes backward. In this campaign English
was a mistake, Hancock was another. Nothing could have
been more incongruous than yoking a Federal soldier with
a peace-at-any-price Democrat. Neither could praise the
other without slandering himself, and the blindest partisan
could not like them both. But, after all, I regard the mili
tary record of English as fully equal to the views of Gen
eral Hancock on the tariff. The greatest mistake that the
Democratic party made was to suppose that a campaign
could be fought and won by slander. The American peo
ple like fair play and they abhor ignorant and absurd vitu
peration. The continent knew that General Garfield was
an honest man ; that he was in the grandest sense a gentle
man ; that he was patriotic, profound and learned ; that his
private life was pure ; that his home life was good and
kind and true, and all the charges made and howled and
screeched and printed and sworn to, harmed only those

40 INTERVIEWS.

who did the making and the howling, the screeching and the
swearing. I never knew a man in whose perfect integrity
I had more perfect confidence, and in less than one year
even the men who have slandered him will agree with me.

Question. How about that " personal and confidential
letter"? (The Morey letter.)

Answer. It was as stupid, as devilish, as basely born as
godfathered. It is an exploded forgery, and the explosion
leaves dead and torn upon the field the author and his
witnesses.

Question. Is there anything in the charge that the Re
publican party seeks to change our form of government by
graudual centralization ?

Answer. Nothing whatever. We want power enough in
the Government to protect, not to destroy, the liberties of
the people. The history of the world shows that burglars
have always opposed an increase of the police. — New York

Her aid i November 5, 1880.

INGERSOLL AND BEECHER.*

Question. What is your opinion of Mr. Beecher?

Answer. I regard him as the greatest man in any pulpit
of the world. He treated me with a generosity that noth
ing can exceed. He rose grandly above the prejudices

* The sensation created by the speech of the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher at the Acad
emy of Music, in Brooklyn, when he uttered a brilliant eulogy on Col. Robert G.
Ingersoll and publicly shook hands with him has not yet subsided. A portion of
the religious world is thoroughly stirred up at what it considers a gross breach of
orthodox propriety. This feeling is especially strong among the class of positivists
who believe that

' 'An Atheist' s laugh' s a poor exchange
For Deity offended."

Many believe that Mr. Beecher is at heart in full sympathy and accord with
ingersoll's teachings, but has not courage enough to say so at the sacrifice of his pas
toral position. The fact that these two men are the very head and front of tneir
respective schools of thought makes the matter an important one. The denounce
ment of the doctrine of eternal punishment, followed by the scene at the Academy,
has about it an aroma of suggestiveness that might work much harm without an
explanation. Since Colonel Ingersoll' s recent attack upon the personnel of the clergy
through the ' ' Shorter Catechism ' ' the pulpit has been remarkably silent regarding
the great atheist. ' ' Is the keen logic and broad humanity of Ingersoll converting
the brain and heart of Christendom ?' ' was recently asked. Did the hand that was
stretched out to him on the stage of the Academy reach across the chasm which
separates orthodoxy from infidelity?

Desiring to answer the last question if possible, a Herald reporter visited Mr.
Beecher and Colonel Ingersoll to learn their opinion of each other. Neither of the
gentlemen was aware that the other was being interviewed.

INTERVIEWS. 41

supposed to belong to his class, and acted as only a man
could act without a chain upon his brain and only kindness
in his heart.

I told him that night that I congratulated the world that
it had a minister with an intellectual horizon broad enough
and a mental sky studded with stars of genius enough to
hold all creeds in scorn that shocked the heart of man. I
think that Mr. Beecher has liberalized the English-speaking
people of the world.

I do not think he agrees with me. He holds to many
things that I most passionately deny. But in common, we
believe in the liberty of thought.

My principal objections to orthodox religion are two —
slavery here and hell hereafter. I do not believe that Mr.
Beecher on these points can disagree with me. The real
difference between us is — he says God, I say Nature. The
real agreement between us is — we both say — Liberty.

Question. What is his forte ?

Answer. He is of a wonderfully poetic temperament. In
pursuing any course of thought his mind is like a stream
flowing through the scenery of fairyland. The stream mur
murs and laughs while the banks grow green and the vines
blossom.

His brain is controlled by his heart. He thinks in
pictures. With him logic means mental melody. The dis
cordant is the absurd.

For years he has endeavored to hide the dungeon of
orthodoxy with the ivy of imagination. Now and then he
pulls for a moment the leafy curtain aside and is horrified
to see the lizards, snakes, basilisks and abnormal monsters
of the orthodox age, and then he utters a great cry, the
protest of a loving, throbbing heart.

He is a great thinker, a marvelous orator, and, in my
judgment, greater and grander than any creed of any
church.

42 INTERVIEWS.

Besides all this, he treated me like a king. Manhood is
his forte, and I expect to live and die his friend.

BEECHER ON INGERSOLL.

Question. What is your opinion of Colonel Ingersoll ?

Answer. I do not think there should be any misconception as to my
motive for indorsing Mr. Ingersoll. I never saw him before that
night, when I clasped his hand in the presence of an assemblage ol
citizens. Yet I regard him as one of the greatest men of this age.

Question. Is his influence upon the world good or otherwise ?

Answer. I am an ordained clergyman and believe in revealed re
ligion. I am, therefore, bound to regard all persons who do not
believe in revealed religion as in error. But on the broad platform of
human liberty and progress I was bound to give him the right hand
of fellowship. I would do it a thousand times over. I do not
know Colonel IngersolPs religious views precisely, but I have a
general knowledge of them. He has the same right to free thought
and free speech that I have. I am not that kind of a coward who has
to kick a man before he shakes hands with him. If I did so I would
have to kick the Methodists, Roman Catholics and all other creeds.
I will not pitch into any man's religion as an excuse for giving him
my hand. I admire Ingersoll because he is not afraid to speak what
he honestly thinks, and I am only sorry that he does not think as I
do. I never heard so much brilliancy and pith put into a two hours'
speech as I did on that night. I wish my whole congregation had
been there to hear it. I regret that there are not more men like In
gersoll interested in the affairs of the nation. I do not wish to be
understood as indorsing skepticism in any form. — New York Herald,
November 7, 1880.

POLITICAL.

Question. Is it true, as rumored, that you intend to leave
Washington and reside in New York ?

Answer. No, I expect to remain here for years to come,
so far as I can now see. My present intention is certainly
to stay here during the coming winter.

Question. Is this because you regard Washington as the
pleasantest and most advantageous city for a residence ?

Answer. Well, in the first place, I dislike to move. In
the next place, the climate is good. In the third place, the
political atmosphere has been growing better of late, and

INTERVIEWS. 43

when you consider that I avoid one dislike and reap the
benefits of two likes, you can see why I remain.

Question. Do you think that the moral atmosphere will
improve with the political atmosphere ?

Answer. I would hate to say that this city is capable ol
any improvement in the way of morality. We have a great
many churches, a great many ministers, and, I believe,
some retired chaplains, so I take it that the moral tone oi
the place could hardly be bettered. One majority in the
Senate might help it. Seriously, however, I think that
Washington has as high a standard of morality as any city
in the Union. And it is one of the best towns in which to
loan money without collateral in the world.

Question. Do you know from experience ?

Answer. This I have been told [was the solemn answer.]

Question. Do you think that the political features of the
incoming administration will differ from the present?

Answer. Of course, I have no right to speak for General
Garfield. I believe his administration will be Republican,
at the same time perfectly kind, manly, and generous. He
is a man to harbor no resentment. He knows that it is the
duty of statesmanship to remove causes of irritation rather
than punish the irritated.

Question. Do I understand you to imply that there will be
a neutral policy, as it were, towards the South ?

Answer. No, I think there will be nothing neutral about
it. I think that the next administration will be one
sided — that is, it will be on the right side. I know of no
better definition for a compromise than to say it is a pro
ceeding in which hypocrites deceive each other. I do not
believe that the incoming administration will be neutral in
anything. The American people do not like neutrality.
They would rather a man were on the wrong side than on
neither. And, in my judgment, there is no paper so utterly
unfair, malicious and devilish, as one that claims to be

44 INTERVIEWS.

neutral. No politician is as bitter as a neutral politician.
Neutrality is generally used as a mask to hide unusual bit
terness. Sometimes it hides what it is — nothing. It always
stands for hollowness of head or bitterness of heart, some
times for both. My idea is — and that is the only reason I
have the right to express it — that General Garfield believes
in the platform adopted by the Republican party. He
believes in free speech, in honest money, in divorce of
church and state, and he believes in the protection of
American citizens by the Federal Government wherever the
flag flies. He believes that the Federal Government is as
much bound to protect the citizen at home as abroad. I
believe he will do the very best he can to carry these great
ideas into execution and make them living realities in the
United States. Personally, I have no hatred toward the
Southern people. I have no hatred toward any class. I
hate tyranny, no matter whether it is South or North ; I hate
hypocrisy, and I hate above all things, the spirit of caste.
If the Southern people could only see that they gained as
great a victory in the Rebellion as the North did, and some
day they will see it, the whole question would be settled.
The South has reaped a far greater benefit from being de
feated than the North has from being successful, and I
believe some day the South will be great enough to appre
ciate that fact. I have always insisted that to be beaten by
the right is to be a victor. The Southern people must get
over the idea that they are insulted simply because they are
out-voted, and they ought by this time to know that the
Republicans of the North, not only do not wish them harm,
but really wish them the utmost success.

Question. But has the Republican party all the good and
the Democratic all the bad ?

Answer. No, I do not think that the Republican party has
all the good, nor do I pretend that the Democratic party has
all the bad ; though I may say that each party comes pretty

INTERVIEWS. 45

near it. I admit that there are thousands of really good fel
lows in the Democratic party, and there are some pretty bad
people in the Republican party. But I honestly believe that
within the latter are most of the progressive men of this
country. That party has in it the elements of growth. It
is full of hope. It anticipates. The Democratic party re
members. It is always talking about the past. It is the
possessor of a vast amount of political rubbish, and I really
believe it has outlived its usefulness. I firmly believe that
your editor, Mr. Hutchins, could start a better organization,
if he would only turn his attention to it. Just think for a
moment of the number you could get rid of by starting a
new party. A hundred names will probably suggest them
selves to any intelligent Democrat, the loss of which would
almost insure success. Some one has said that a tailor in
Boston made a fortune by advertising that he did not cut the
breeches of Webster's statue. A new party by advertising
that certain men would not belong to it, would have an ad
vantage in the next race.

Question. What, in your opinion, were the causes which
led to the Democratic defeat ?

Answer. I think the nomination of English was exceed
ingly unfortunate. Indiana, being an October State, the
best man in that State should have been nominated either for
President or Vice-President. Personally, I know nothing of
Mr. English, but I have the right to say that he was exceed
ingly unpopular. That was mistake number one. Mistake
number two was putting a plank in the platform insisting
upon a tariff for revenue only. That little word " only "
was one of the most frightful mistakes ever made by a
political party. That little word "only " was a millstone
around the neck of the entire campaign. The third mistake
was Hancock's definition of the tariff. It was exceedingly
unfortunate, exceedingly laughable, and came just in the
nick of time. The fourth mistake was the speech of Wade

46 INTERVIEWS.

Hampton, I mean the speech that the Republican papers
claim he made. Of course I do not know, personally,
whether it was made or not. If made, it was a great mis
take. Mistake number five was made in Alabama, where
they refused to allow a Greenbacker to express his opinion.
That lost the Democrats enough Greenbackers to turn the
scale in Maine, and enough in Indiana to change that elec
tion. Mistake number six was in the charges made against
General Garfield. They were insisted upon, magnified and
multiplied until at last the whole thing assumed the propor
tions of a malicious libel. This was a great mistake, for the
reason that a number of Democrats in the United States
had most heartily and cordially indorsed General Garfield
as a man of integrity and great ability. Such indorsements
had been made by the leading Democrats of the North and
South, among them Governor Hendricks and many others
I might name. Jere Black had also certified to the integrity
and intellectual grandeur of General Garfield, and when
afterward he certified to the exact contrary, the people be
lieved that it was a persecution. The next mistake, num
ber seven, was the Chinese letter. While it lost Garfield
California, Nevada and probably New Jersey, it did him
good in New York. This letter was the greatest mistake
made, because a crime is greater than a mistake. These, in
my judgment, are the principal mistakes made by the Demo
cratic party in the campaign. Had McDonald been on the
ticket the result might have been different, or had the party
united on some man in New York, satisfactory to the fac
tions, it might have succeeded. The truth, however, is that
the North to-day is Republican, and it may be that had the
Democratic party made no mistakes whatever the result
would have been the same. But that mistakes were made
is now perfectly evident to the blindest partisan. If the
ticket originally suggested, Seymour and McDonald, had
been nominated on an unobjectionable platform, the result

INTERVIEWS. 47

might have been different. One of the happiest days in my
life was the day on which the Cincinnati convention did not
nominate Seymour and did nominate English. I regard
General Hancock as a good soldier, but not particularly well
qualified to act as President. He has neither the intellectual
training nor the experience to qualify him for that place.

Question. You have doubtless heard of a new party,
Colonel. What is your idea in regard to it ?

Answer. I have heard two or three speak of a new party
to be called the National party, or National Union party,
but whether there is anything in such a movement I have
no means of knowing. Any party in opposition to the
Republican, no matter what it may be called, must win on
a new issue, and that new issue will determine the new
party. Parties cannot be made to order. They must grow.
They are the natural offspring of national events. They
must embody certain hopes, they must gratify, or promise
to gratify, the feelings of a vast number of people. No
man can make a party, and if a new party springs into ex
istence it will not be brought forth to gratify the wishes of
a few, but the wants of the many. It has seemed to me
for years that the Democratic party carried too great a load
in the shape of record ; that its autobiography was nearly
killing it all the time, and that if it could die just long
enough to assume another form at the resurrection, just long
enough to leave a grave stone to mark the end of its his
tory, to get a cemetery back of it, that it might hope for
something like success. In other words, that there must
be a funeral before there can be victory. Most of its leaders
are worn out. They have become so accustomed to defeat
that they take it as a matter of course ; they expect it in
the beginning and seem unconsciously to work for it.
There must be some new ideas, and this only can happen
when the party as such has been gathered to its fathers.
I do not think that the advice of Senator Hill will be fol-

48 INTERVIEWS.

lowed. He is willing to kill the Democratic party in the
South if we will kill the Republican party in the North.
This puts me in mind of what the rooster said to the horse :
" Let us agree not to step on each other's feet."

Question. Your views of the country's future and pros
pects must naturally be rose colored ?

Answer. Of course, I look at things through Republican
eyes and may be prejudiced without knowing it. But it
really seems to me that the future is full of great promise.
The South, after all, is growing prosperous. It is produc
ing more and more every year, until in time it will become
wealthy. The West is growing almost beyond the imag
ination of a speculator, and the Eastern and Middle States
are much more than holding their own. We have now
fifty millions of people and in a few years will have a hun
dred. That we are a Nation I think is now settled. Our
growth will be unparalleled. I myself expect to live to see
as many ships on the Pacific as on the Atlantic. In a few
years there will probably be ten millions of people liv
ing along the Rocky and Sierra Mountains. It will not be
long until Illinois will find her market west of her. In
fifty years this will be the greatest nation on the earth,
and the most populous in the civilized world. China is
slowly awakening from the lethargy of centuries. It will soon
have the wants of Europe, and America will supply those
wants. This is a nation of inventors and there is more
mechanical ingenuity in the United States than on the rest
of the globe. In my judgment this country will in a short
time add to its customers hundreds of millions of the peo
ple of the Celestial Empire. So you see, to me, the future
is exceedingly bright. And besides all this, I must not
forget the thing that is always nearest my heart. There is
more intellectual liberty in the United States to-day than
ever before. The people are beginning to see that every
citizen ought to have the right to express himself freely

INTERVIEWS. 49

upon every possible subject. In a little while, all the bar
barous laws that now disgrace the statute books of the
States by discriminating against a man simply because he
is honest, will be repealed, and there will be one country
where all citizens will have and enjoy not only equal rights,
but all rights. Nothing gratifies me so much as the growth
of intellectual liberty. After all, the true civilization is
where every man gives to every other, every right that he

claims for himself. — The Post, Washington, D. C., November 14, 1880.

RELIGION IN POLITICS.

Question. How do you regard the present political situ
ation ?

Answer, My opinion is that the ideas the North fought
for upon the neld have at last triumphed at the ballot-box.
For several years after the Rebellion was put down the
Southern ideas traveled North. We lost West Virginia,
New Jersey, Connecticut, New York and a great many
congressional districts in other States. We lost both
houses of Congress and every Southern State. The South
ern ideas reached their climax in 1876. In my judgment
the tide has turned, and hereafter the Northern idea is go
ing South. The young men are on the Republican side.
The old Democrats are dying. The cradle is beating the
coffin. It is a case of life and death, and life is ahead.
The heirs outnumber the administrators.

Question. What kind of a President will Garfield make ?

Answer. My opinion is that he will make as good a
President as this nation ever had. He is fully equipped.
He is a trained statesman. He has discussed all the great
questions that have arisen for the last eighteen years, and
with great ability. He is a thorough scholar, a conscien
tious student, and takes an exceedingly comprehensive sur
vey of all questions. He is genial, generous and candid,
and has all the necessary qualities of heart and brain to

50 INTERVIEWS.

make a great President. He has no prejudices. Prejudice
is the child and flatterer of ignorance. He is firm, but not
obstinate. The obstinate man wants his own way ; the
firm man stands by the right. Andrew Johnson was ob
stinate — Lincoln was firm.

Question. How do you think he will treat the South ?

Answer. Just the same as the North. He will be the
President of the whole country. He will not execute the
laws by the compass, but according to the Constitution. I
do not speak for General Garfield, nor by any authority
from his friends. No one wishes to injure the South. The
Republican party feels in honor bound to protect all citizens,
white and black. It must do this in order to keep its self-
respect. It must throw the shield of the Nation over the
weakest, the humblest and the blackest citizen. Any other
course is suicide. No thoughtful Southern man can object
to this, and a Northern Democrat knows that it is right.

Question. Is there a probability that Mr. Sherman will be
retained in the Cabinet ?

Answer. I have no knowledge upon that question, and
consequently have nothing to say. My opinion about the
Cabinet is, that General Garfield is well enough acquainted
with public men to choose a Cabinet that will suit him and
the country. I have never regarded it as the proper thing
to try and force a Cabinet upon a President. He has the
right to be surrounded by his friends, by men in whose
judgment and in whose friendship he has the utmost con
fidence, and I would no more think of trying to put some
man in the Cabinet than I would think of signing a petition
that a man should marry a certain woman. General Gar-
field will, I believe, select his own constitutional advisers,
and he will take the best he knows.

Question. What, in your opinion, is the condition of the
Democratic party at present ?

Answer. It must get a new set of principles, and throw

INTERVIEWS. 51

away its prejudices. It must demonstrate its capacity to
govern the country by governing the States where it is in
power. In the presence of rebellion it gave up the ship. The
South must become Republican before the North will will
ingly give it power; that is, the great ideas of nationality
and Federal protection must be absolutely accepted. Ideas
are greater than parties, and if our flag is not large enough
to protect every citizen, we must add a few more stars and
stripes. Personally I have no hatreds in this matter. The
present is not only the child of the past, but the necessary
child. A statesman must deal with things as they are.
He must not be like Gladstone, who divides his time between
foreign wars and amendments to the English Book of Com
mon Prayer.

Question. How do you regard the religious question in
politics ?

Answer. Religion is a personal matter — a matter that
each individual soul should be allowed to settle for itself.
No man shod in the brogans of impudence should walk into
the temple of another's soul. While every man should be
governed by the highest possible considerations of the pub
lic weal, no one has the right to ask for legal assistance in
the support of his particular sect. If Catholics oppose the
public schools I would not oppose them because they are
Catholics, but because I am in favor of the schools. I re
gard the public school as the intellectual bread of life.
Personally I have no confidence in any religion that can be
demonstrated only to children. I suspect all creeds that
rely implicitly on mothers and nurses. That religion is the
best that commends itself the strongest to men and women of
education and genius. After all, the prejudices of infancy and
the ignorance of the aged are a poor foundation for any system
of morals or faith. I respect every honest man, and I think
more of a liberal Catholic than of an illiberal Infidel. The
religious question should be left out of politics. You might

52 INTERVIEWS.

as well decide questions of art and music by a ward caucus
as to govern the longings and dreams of the soul by law. I
believe in letting the sun shine whether the weeds grow or
not. I can never side with Protestants if they try to put
Catholics down by law, and I expect to oppose both of them
until religious intolerance is regarded as a crime.

Qttestion. Is the religious movement of which you are the
chief exponent spreading?

Answer. There are ten times as many Freethinkers this
year as there were last. Civilization is the child of free
thought. The new world has drifted away from the rotting
wharf of superstition. The politics of this country are be
ing settled by the new ideas of , individual liberty ; and
parties and churches that cannot accept the new truths must
perish. I want it perfectly understood that I am not a poli
tician. I believe in liberty and I want to see the time
when every man, woman and child will enjoy every human
right.

The election is over, the passions aroused by the campaign
will soon subside, the sober judgment of the people will, in
my opinion, indorse the result, and time will indorse the in
dorsement. — The Evening Express, New York City, November 19, 1880.

MIRACLES AND IMMORTALITY.

Question. You have seen some accounts of the recent ser
mon of Dr. Tyng on " Miracles," I presume, and if so, what
is your opinion of the sermon, and also what is your opinion
of miracles ?

Answer. From an orthodox standpoint, I think the Rev.
Dr. Tyng is right. If miracles were necessary eighteen
hundred years ago, before scientific facts enough were known
to overthrow hundreds and thousands of passages in the
Bible, certainly they are necessary now. Dr. Tyng sees
clearly that the old miracles are nearly worn out, and that
some new ones are absolutely essential. He takes for

INTERVIEWS. 53

granted that, if God would do a miracle to found his gospel,
he certainly would do some more to preserve it, and that it
is in need of preservation about now is evident. I am
amazed that the religious world should laugh at him for
believing in miracles. It seems to me just as reasonable
that the deaf, dumb, blind and lame, should be cured at
Lourdes as at Palestine. It certainly is no more wonderful
that the law of nature should be broken now than that it
was broken several thousand years ago. Dr. Tyng also has
this advantage. The witnesses by whom he proves these
miracles are alive. An unbeliever can have the opportunity
of a cross-examination. Whereas, the miracles in the New
Testament are substantiated only by the dead. It is just as
reasonable to me that blind people receive their sight in
France as that devils were made to vacate human bodies in
the holy land.

For one I am exceedingly glad that Dr. Tyng has taken
this position. It shows that he is a believer in a personal
God, in a God who is attending a little to the affairs of this
world, and in a God who did not exhaust his supplies in the
apostolic age. It is refreshing to me to find in this scientific
age a gentleman who still believes in miracles. My opinion
is that all thorough religionists will have to take the ground
and admit that a supernatural religion must be super-
naturally preserved.

I have been asking for a miracle for several years, and
have in a very mild, gentle and loving way, taunted the
church for not producing a little one. I have had the im
pudence to ask any number of them to join in a prayer
asking anything they desire for the purpose of testing the
efficiency of what is known as supplication. They answer
me by calling my attention to the miracles recorded in the
New Testament. I insist, however, on a new miracle, and,
personally, I would like to see one now. Certainly, the
Infinite has not lost his power, and certainly the Infinite

54 INTERVIEWS.

knows that thousands and hundreds of thousands, if the
Bible is true, are now pouring over the precipice of unbelief
into the gulf of hell. One little miracle would save thou
sands. One little miracle in Pittsburg, well authenticated,
would do more good than all the preaching ever heard in this
sooty town. The Rev. Dr. Tyng clearly sees this, and he
has been driven to the conclusion, first, that God can do
miracles ; second, that he ought to, third, that he has. In
this he is perfectly logical. After a man believes the Bible ;
after he believes in the flood and in the story of Jonah, cer
tainly he ought not to hesitate at a miracle of to-day. When
I say I want a miracle, I mean by that, I want a good one.
All the miracles recorded in the New Testament could have
been simulated. A fellow could have pretended to be dead,
or blind, or dumb, or deaf. I want to see a good miracle.
I want to see a man with one leg, and then I want to see the
other leg grow out.

I would like to see a miracle like that performed in North
Carolina. Two men were disputing about the relative merits
of the salve they had for sale. One of the men, in order to
demonstrate that his salve was better than any other, cut off
a dog's tail and applied a little of the salve to the stump,
and, in the presence of the spectators, a new tail grew out.
But the other man, who also had salve for sale, took up the
piece of tail that had been cast away, put a little salve at
the end of that, and a new dog grew out, and the last heard
of those parties they were quarrelling as to who owned the
second dog. Something like that is what I call a miracle.

Question. What do you believe about the immortality of
the soul ? Do you believe that the spirit lives as an indi
vidual after the body is dead ?

Answer. I have said a great many times that it is no more
wonderful that we should live again than that we do live.
Sometimes I have thought it not quite so wonderful for the
reason that we have a start. But upon that subject I have not

INTERVIEWS. 55

the slightest information. Whether man lives again or not
I cannot pretend to say. There may be another world and
there may not be. If there is another world we ought to
make the best of it after arriving there. If there is not an
other world, or if there is another world, we ought to make
the best of this. And since nobody knows, all should be
permitted to have their opinions, and my opinion is that
nobody knows.

If we take the Old Testament for authority, man is not
immortal. The Old Testament shows man how he lost im
mortality. According to Genesis, God prevented man from
putting forth his hand and eating of the Tree of Life. It is
there stated, had he succeeded, man would have lived for
ever. God drove him from the garden, preventing him eat
ing of this tree, and in consequence man became mortal ; so
that if we go by the Old Testament we are compelled to give
up immortality. The New Testament has but little on the
subject. In one place we are told to seek for immortality.
If we are already immortal, it is hard to see why we should
go on seeking for it. In another place we are told that they
who are worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection
of the dead, are not given in marriage. From this one would
infer there would be some unworthy to be raised from the
dead. Upon the question of immortality, the Old Testament
throws but little satisfactory light. I do not deny immor
tality, nor would I endeavor to shake the belief of anybody
in another life. What I am endeavoring to do is to put out
the fires of hell. If we cannot have heaven without hell. I
am in favor of abolishing heaven. I do not want to go i x
heaven if one soul is doomed to agony. I would rather be
annihilated.

My opinion of immortality is this :

First. — I live, and that of itself is infinitely wonderful.
Second. — There was a time when I was not, and after I was
not, I was. Third. — Now that I am, I may be again ; and it

56 INTERVIEWS.

is no more wonderful that I may be again, if I have been,
than that I am, having once been nothing. If the churches
advocated immortality, if they advocated eternal justice, if
they said that man would be rewarded and punished accord
ing to deeds ; if they admitted that some time in eternity
there would be an opportunity given to lift up souls, and
that throughout all the ages the angels of progress and virtue
would beckon the fallen upward ; and that some time, and
no matter how far away they might put off the time, all the
children of men would be reasonably happy, I never would
say a solitary word against the church, but just as long as
they preach that the majority of mankind will suffer eternal
pain, just so long I shall oppose them ; that is to say, as long
as I live.

Question. Do you believe in a God ; and, if so, what kind
of a God?

Answer. Let me, in the first place, lay a foundation for an
answer.

First. — Man gets all food for thought through the medium
of the senses. The effect of nature upon the senses, and
through the senses upon the brain, must be natural. All
food for thought, then, is natural. As a consequence of this,
there can be no supernatural idea in the human brain.
Whatever idea there is must have been a natural product.
If, then, there is no supernatural idea in the human brain,
then there cannot be in the human brain an idea of the su
pernatural. If we can have no idea of the supernatural, and
if the God of whom you spoke is admitted to be supernatural,
then, of course, I can have no idea of him, and I certainly
can have no very fixed belief on any subject about which I
have no idea.

There may be a God for all I know. There may be thou
sands of them. But the idea of an infinite Being outside
and independent of nature is inconceivable. I do not know
of any word that would explain my doctrine or my views

INTERVIEWS. 57

upon that subject. I suppose Pantheism is as near as I
could go. I believe in the eternity of matter and in the
eternity of intelligence, but I do not believe in any Being
outside of nature. I do not believe in any personal Deity.
I do not believe in any aristocracy of the air. I know nothing
about origin or destiny. Between these two horizons I live,
whether I wish to or not, and must be satisfied with what
I find between these two horizons. I have never heard any
God described that I believe in. I have never heard any
religion explained that I accept. To make something out
of nothing cannot be more absurd than that an infinite in
telligence made this world, and proceeded to fill it with
crime and want and agony, and then, not satisfied with the
evil he had wrought, made a hell in which to consummate
the great mistake.

Question. Do you believe that the world and all that is in
it came by chance ?

Answer. I do not believe anything comes by chance. I
regard the present as the necessary child of a necessary past.
I believe matter is eternal ; that it has eternally existed and
eternally will exist. I believe that in all matter, in some
way, there is what we call force ; that one of the forms of
force is intelligence. I believe that whatever is in the uni
verse has existed from eternity and will forever exist.

Secondly. — I exclude from my philosophy all ideas of
chance. Matter changes eternally its form, never its essence.
You cannot conceive of anything being created. No one
can conceive of anything existing without a cause or with a
cause. Let me explain ; a thing is not a cause until an effect
has been produced ; so that, after all, cause and effect are
twins coming into life at precisely the same instant, born of
the womb of an unknown mother. The Universe is the only
fact, and everything that ever has happened, is happening,
or will happen, are but the different aspects of the one eternal

fact. — The Dispatch^ Pittsburg, Pa., December 11, 1880.

THE POLITICAL OUTLOOK.

Question. What phases will the Southern question assume
in the next four years?

Answer. The next Congress should promptly unseat
every member of Congress in whose district there was not
a fair and honest election. That is the first hard work to
be done. Let notice, in this way, be given to the whole
country, that fraud cannot succeed. No man should be
allowed to hold a seat by force or fraud. Just as soon as
it is understood that fraud is useless it will be abandoned.
In that way the honest voters of the whole country can be
protected.

An honest vote settles the Southern question, and Con
gress has the power to compel an honest vote, or to leave the
dishonest districts without representation. I want this
policy adopted, not only in the South, but in the North.
No man touched or stained with fraud should be allowed to
hold his seat. Send such men home, and let them stay
there until sent back by honest votes. The Southern ques
tion is a Northern question, and the Republican party must
settle it for all time. We must have honest elections, or the
Republic must fall. Illegal voting must be considered and
punished as a crime.

Taking one hundred and seventy thousand as the basis
of representation, the South, through her astounding in
crease of colored population, gains three electoral votes,
while the North and East lose three. Garfield was elected
by the thirty thousand colored votes cast in New York.

Question. Will the negro continue to be the balance of
power, and if so, will it inure to his benefit ?

Answer. The more political power the colored man has
the better he will be treated, and if he ever holds the balance

INTERVIEWS. 59

of power he will be treated as well as the balance of our
citizens. My idea is that the colored man should stand on
an equality with the white before the law ; that he should
honestly be protected in all his rights; that he should be
allowed to vote, and that his vote should be counted. It is
a simple question of honesty. The colored people are doing
well ; they are industrious ; they are trying to get an educa
tion, and, on the whole, I think they are behaving fully as
well as the whites. They are the most forgiving people in
the world, and about the only real Christians in our country.
They have suffered enough, and for one I am on their side.
I think more of honest black people than of dishonest whites,
to say the least of it.

Question. Do you apprehend any trouble from the South
ern leaders in this closing session of Congress, in attempts
to force pernicious legislation ?

Answer. I do not. The Southern leaders know that the
doctrine of State Sovereignty is dead. They know that they
cannot depend upon the Northern Democrat, and they know
that the best interests of the South can only be preserved by
admitting that the war settled the questions and ideas fought
for and against. They know that this country is a Nation,
and that no party can possibly succeed that advocates any
thing contrary to that. My own opinion is that most of the
Southern leaders are heartily ashamed of the course pur
sued by their Northern friends, and will take the first op
portunity to say so.

Question. In what light do you regard the Chinaman?

Answer. I am opposed to compulsory immigration, or
cooley or slave immigration. If Chinamen are sent to this
country by corporations or companies under contracts that
amount to slavery or anything like or near it, then I am
opposed to it. But I am not prepared to say that I would
be opposed to voluntary immigration. I see by the papers
that a new treaty has been agreed upon that will probably

60 INTERVIEWS.

be ratified and be satisfactory to all parties. We ought to
treat China with the utmost fairness. If our treaty is
wrong, amend it, but do so according to the recognized
usage of nations. After what has been said and done in
this country I think there is very little danger of any China
man voluntarily coming here. By this time China must
have an exceedingly exalted opinion of our religion, and of
the justice and hospitality born of our most holy faith.

Question. What is your opinion of making ex- Presidents
Senators for life ?

Answer. I am opposed to it. I am against any man hold
ing office for life. And I see no more reason for making
ex-Presidents Senators, than for making ex-Senators Presi
dents. To me the idea is preposterous. Why should ex-
Presidents be taken care of? In this country labor is not
disgraceful, and after a man has been President he has still
the right to be useful. I am personally acquainted with
several men who will agree, in consideration of being elected
to the presidency, not to ask for another office during their
natural lives. The people of this country should never
allow a great man to suffer. The hand, not of charity, but
of justice and generosity, should be forever open to those
who have performed great public service.

But the ex-Presidents of the future may not all be great
and good men, and bad ex-Presidents will not make good
Senators. If the nation does anything, let it give a reason
able pension to ex- Presidents. No man feels like giving
pension, power, or place to General Grant simply because
he was once President, but because he was a great soldier,
and led the armies of the nation to victory. Make him a
General, and retire him with the highest military title. Let
him grandly wear the laurels he so nobly won, and should
the sky at any time be darkened with a cloud of foreign
war, this country will again hand him the sword. Such a
course honors the nation and the man.

INTERVIEWS. 6 1

Question. Are we not entering upon the era of our
greatest prosperity ?

Answer. We are just beginning to be prosperous. The
Northern Pacific Railroad is to be completed. Forty millions
of dollars have just been raised by that company, and new
States will soon be born in the great Northwest. The Texas
Pacific will be pushed to San Diego, and in a few years
we will ride in a Pullman car from Chicago to the City
of Mexico. The gold and silver mines are yielding more
and more, and within the last ten years more than
forty million acres of land have been changed from wilder
ness to farms. This country is beginning to grow. We
have just fairly entered upon what I believe will be the
grandest period of national development and prosper
ity. With the Republican party in power; with good
money ; with unlimited credit ; with the best land in the
world ; with ninety thousand miles of railway ; with moun
tains of gold and silver ; with hundreds of thousands of
square miles of coal fields ; with iron enough for the whole
world; with the best system of common schools; with
telegraph wires reaching every city and town, so that no
two citizens are an hour apart; with the telephone, that
makes everybody in the city live next door, and with the
best folks in the world, how can we help prospering until
the continent is covered with happy homes ?

Question. What do you think of civil service reform?

Answer. I am in favor of it. I want such civil service
reform that all the offices will be filled with good and com
petent Republicans. The majority should rule, and the men
who are in favor of the views of the majority should hold
the offices. I am utterly opposed to the idea that a party
should show its liberality at the expense of its principles.
Men holding office can afford to take their chances with the
rest of us. If they are Democrats, they should not expect
to succeed when their party is defeated. I believe that there

62 INTERVIEWS.

are enough good, honest Republicans in this country to fill
all the offices, and I am opposed to taking any Democrats
until the Republican supply is exhausted.

Men should not join the Republican party to get office.
Such men are contemptible to the last degree. Neither
should a Republican administration compel a man to leave
the party to get a Federal appointment. After a great bat
tle has been fought I do not believe that the victorious
general should re\\ ard the officers of the conquered army.

My doctrine is, rewards for friends. — The Commercial, Cincinnati,
Ohio, December 6, 1880.

MR. BEECHER, MOSES AND THE NEGRO.

Question. Mr. Beecher is here. Have you seen him ?

Answer. No, I did not meet Mr. Beecher. Neither did I
hear him lecture. The fact is, that long ago I made up my
mind that under no circumstances would I attend any lec
ture or other entertainment given at Lincoln Hall. First,
because the hall has been denied me, and secondly, because
I regard it as exceedingly unsafe. The hall is up several
stories from the ground, and in case of the slightest panic,
in my judgment, many lives would be lost. Had it not
been for this, and for the fact that the persons owning it
imagined that because they had control, the brick and
mortar had some kind of holy and sacred quality, and that
this holiness is of such a wonderful character that it would
not be proper for a man in that hall to tell his honest
thoughts, I would have heard him.

Question. Then I assume that you and Mr. Beecher have
made up ?

Answer. There is nothing to be made up so far as I
know. Mr. Beecher has treated me very well, and,
I believe, a little too well for his own peace of mind. I
have been informed that some members of Plymouth
Church felt exceedingly hurt that their pastor should so

INTERVIEWS. 63

far forget himself as to extend the right hand of fellowship
to one who differs from him upon what they consider very
essential points in theology. You see I have denied with
all my might, a great many times, the infamous doctrine
of eternal punishment. I have also had the temerity to
suggest that I did not believe that a being of infinite jus
tice and mercy was the author of all that I find in the Old
Testament. As, for instance, I have insisted that God
never commanded anybody to butcher women or to cut the
throats of prattling babes. These orthodox gentlemen
have rushed to the rescue of Jehovah by insisting that he
did all these horrible things. I have also maintained that
God never sanctioned or upheld human slavery ; that he
never would make one child to own and beat another.

I have also expressed some doubts as to whether this
same God ever established the institution of polygamy.
I have insisted that that institution is simply infamous ;
that it destroys the idea of home ; that it turns to ashes
the most sacred words in our language, and leaves the world
a kind of den in which crawl the serpents of selfishness
and lust. I have been informed that after Mr. Beecher had
treated me kindly a few members of his congregation
objected, and really felt ashamed that he had so forgotten
himself. After that, Mr. Beecher saw fit to give his ideas
of the position I had taken. In this he was not exceed
ingly kind, nor was his justice very conspicuous. But I
cared nothing about that, not the least. As I have said
before, whenever Mr. Beecher says a good thing I give him
credit. Whenever he does an unfair or unjust thing I
charge it to the account of his religion. I have insisted,
and I still insist, that Mr. Beecher is far better than his
creed. I do not believe that he believes in the doctrine of
eternal punishment. Neither do I believe that he believes
in the literal truth of the Scriptures. And, after all, if the
Bible is not true, it is hardly worth while to insist upon its

64 INTERVIEWS.

inspiration. An inspired lie is no better than an uninspired
one. If the Bible is true it does not need to be inspired,
If it is not true, inspiration does not help it. So that after
all it is simply a question of fact. Is it true ? I believe
Mr. Beecher stated that one of my grievous faults was that
I picked out the bad things in the Bible. How an infinitely
good and wise God came to put bad things in his book Mr.
Beecher does not explain. I have insisted that the Bible
is not inspired, and, in order to prove that, have pointed
out such passages as I deemed unworthy to have been writ
ten even by a civilized man or a savage. I certainly would
not endeavor to prove that the Bible is uninspired by
picking out its best passages. I admit that there are
many good things in the Bible. The fact that there are
good things in it does not prove its inspiration, because there
are thousands of other books containing good things, and
yet no one claims they are inspired. Shakespeare's works
contain a thousand times more good things than the Bible ;
but no one claims he was an inspired man. It is also true
that there are many bad things in Shakespeare — many pas
sages which I wish he had never written. But I can excuse
Shakespeare, because he did not rise absolutely above his
time. That is to say, he was a man ; that is to say, he was
imperfect. If anybody claimed now that Shakespeare was
actually inspired, that claim would be answered by point
ing to certain weak or bad or vulgar passages in his works.
But every Christian will say that it is a certain kind of
blasphemy to impute vulgarity or weakness to God, as
they are all obliged to defend the weak, the bad and the
vulgar, so long as they insist upon the inspiration of the
Bible. Now, I pursued the same course with the Bible that
Mr. Beecher has pursued with me. Why did he want to
pick out my bad things ? Is it possible that he is a kind of
vulture that sees only the carrion of another ? After all,
has he not pursued the same method with me that he

INTERVIEWS. 65

blames me for pursuing in regard to the Bible ? Of course
he must pursue that method. He could not object to me
and then point out passages that were not objectionable. If
he found fault he had to find faults in order to sustain his
ground. That is exactly what I have done with the Scrip
tures — nothing more and nothing less. The reason I have
thrown away the Bible is that in many places it is harsh,
cruel, unjust, coarse, vulgar, atrocious, infamous. At the
same time, I admit that it contains many passages of an
excellent and splendid character — many good things, wise
sayings, and many excellent and just laws.

But I would like to ask this: Suppose there were no
passages in the Bible except those upholding slavery,
polygamy and wars of extermination ; would anybody
then claim that it was the word of God ? I would like to
ask if there is a Christian in the world who would not be
overjoyed to find that every one of these passages was an
interpolation ? I would also like to ask Mr. Beecher if he
would not be greatly gratified to find that after God had
written the Bible the Devil had got hold of it, and interpo
lated all these passages about slavery, polygamy, the
slaughter of women and babes and the doctrine of eternal
punishment ? Suppose, as a matter of fact, the Devil did get
hold of it ; what part of the Bible would Mr. Beecher pick
out as having been written by the Devil ? And if he picks
out these passages could not the Devil answer him by say
ing, " You, Mr. Beecher, are like a vulture, a kind of buz
zard, flying through the tainted air of inspiration, and
pouncing down upon the carrion. Why do you not fly
like a dove, and why do you not have the innocent ignor
ance of the dove, so that you could light upon a carcass
and imagine that you were surrounded by the perfume
of violets? " The fact is that good things in a book do not
prove that it is inspired, but the presence of bad things
does prove that it is not.

66 INTERVIEWS.

Question. What was the real difficulty between you and
Moses, Colonel, a man who has been dead for thousands
of years ?

Answer. We never had any difficulty. I have always
taken pains to say that Moses had nothing to do with the
Pentateuch. Those books, in my judgment, were written
several centuries after Moses had become dust in his un
known sepulchre. No doubt Moses was quite a man in
his day, if he ever existed at all. Some people say that
Moses is exactly the same as " law-giver ; " that is to say,
as Legislature, that is to say as Congress. Imagine some
body in the future as regarding the Congress of the United
States as one person ! And then imagine that somebody
endeavoring to prove that Congress was always consistent.
But, whether Moses lived or not makes but little difference
to me. I presume he filled the place and did the work
that he was compelled to do, and although according to
the account God had much to say to him with regard to
the making of altars, tongs, snuffers and candlesticks,
there is much left for nature still to tell. Thinking of
Moses as a man, admitting that he was above his fellows,
that he was in his day and generation a leader, and, in a
certain narrow sense, a patriot, that he was the founder of
the Jewish people; that he found them barbarians and
endeavored to control them by thunder and lightning, and
found it necessary to pretend that he was in partnership
with the power governing the universe ; that he took
advantage of their ignorance and fear, just as politicians
do now, and as theologians always will, still, I see no evi
dence that the man Moses was any nearer to God than his
descendants, who are still warring against the Philistines
in every civilized part of the globe. Moses was a believer
in slavery, in polygamy, in wars of extermination, in
religious persecution and intolerance and in almost every
thing that is now regarded with loathing, contempt and

INTERVIEWS. 67

scorn. The Jehovah of whom he speaks violated, or com
mands the violation of at least nine of the Ten Command
ments he gave. There is one thing, however, that can be
said of Moses that cannot be said of any person who now
insists that he was inspired, and that is, he was in advance
of his time.

Question. What do you think of the Buckner Bill for the
colonization of the negroes in Mexico ?

Answer. Where does Mr. Buckner propose to colonize
the white people, and what right has he to propose the
colonization of six millions of people ? Should we not have
other bills to colonize the Germans, the Swedes, the Irish,
and then, may be, another bill to drive the Chinese into
the sea ? Where do we get the right to say that the negroes
must emigrate ?

All such schemes will, in my judgment, prove utterly
futile. Perhaps the history of the world does not give an
instance of the emigration of six millions of people. Not
withstanding the treatment that Ireland has received from
England, which may be designated as a crime of three
hundred years, the Irish still love Ireland. All the des
potism in the world will never crush out of the Irish heart
the love of home — the adoration of the old sod. The
negroes of the South have certainly suffered enough to
drive them into other countries ; but after all, they prefer
to stay where they were born. They prefer to live where
their ancestors were slaves, where fathers and mothers
were sold and whipped ; and I don't believe it will be pos
sible to induce a majority of them to leave that land. Of
course, thousands may leave, and in process of time mil
lions may go, but I don't believe emigration will ever
equal their natural increase. As the whites of the South
become civilized the reason for going will be less and less.

I see no reason why the white and black men cannot
live together in the same land, under the same flag. The

68 INTERVIEWS.

beauty of liberty is you cannot have it unless you give it
away, and the more you give away the more you have. I
know that my liberty is secure only because others are
free.

I am perfectly willing to live in a country with such
men as Frederick Douglass and Senator Bruce. I have
always preferred a good, clever black man to a mean white
man, and I am of the opinion that I shall continue in that
preference. Now, if we could only have a colonization
bill that would get rid of all the rowdies, all the rascals and
hypocrites, I would like to see it carried out, though some
people might insist that it would amount to a repudiation
of the national debt and that hardly enough would be left
to pay the interest. No, talk as we will, the colored peo
ple helped to save this Nation. They have been at all
times and in all places the friends of our flag ; a flag that
never really protected them. And for my part, I am will
ing that they should stand forever beneath that flag, the
equal in rights of all other people. Politically, if any
black men are to be sent away, I want it understood that
each one is to be accompanied by a Democrat, so that the
balance of power, especially in New York, will not be dis
turbed.

Question. I notice that leading Republican newspapers
are advising General Garfield to cut loose from the
machine in politics ; what do you regard as the machine ?

Answer. All defeated candidates regard the persons who
defeated them as constituting a machine, and always ima
gine that there is some wicked conspiracy at the bottom of
the machine. Some of the recent reformers regard the
people who take part in the early stages of a political cam
paign — who attend caucuses and primaries, who speak of
politics to their neighbors, as members and parts of the
machine, and regard only those as good and reliable
American citizens who tak<? no part whatever, simply re-

INTERVIEWS. 69

serving the right to grumble after the work has been done
by others. Not much can be accomplished in politics
without an organization, and the moment an organization
is formed, and, you might say, just a little before, leading
spirits will be developed. Certain men will take the lead,
and the weaker men will in a short time, unless they get
all the loaves and fishes, denounce the whole thing as a
machine, and, to show how thoroughly and honestly they
detest the machine in politics, will endeavor to organize a
little machine themselves. General Garfield has been in
politics for many years. He knows the principal men in
both parties. He knows the men who have not only done
something, but who are capable of doing something, and
such men will not, in my opinion, be neglected. I do not
believe that General Garfield will do any act calculated to
divide the Republican party. No thoroughly great man
carries personal prejudice into the administration of public
affairs. Of course, thousands of people will be prophesy
ing that this man is to be snubbed and another to be paid ;
but, in my judgment, after the 4th of March most people
will say that General Garfield has used his power wisely
and that he has neither sought nor shunned men simply
because he wished to pay debts — either of love or hatred.

—Washington correspondent, Brooklyn Eagle, January 31, 1881.

HADES, DELAWARE AND FREETHOUGHT.

Question. Now that a lull has come in politics, I thought
I would come and see what is going on in the religious
world ?

Answer. Well, from what little I learn, there has not been
much going on during the last year. There are five hundred
and twenty-six Congregational Churches in Massachusetts,
and two hundred of these churches have not received a new
member for an entire year, and the others have scarcely held
their own. In Illinois there are four hundred and eighty-

7O INTERVIEWS.

three Presbyterian Churches, and they have now fewer mem
bers than they had in 1879, and of the four hundred and
eighty -three, one hundred and eighty-three have not received
a single new member for twelve months. A report has been
made, under the auspices of the Pan-Presbyterian Council,to
the effect that there are in the whole world about three mill
ions of Presbyterians. This is about one-fifth of one per
cent, of the inhabitants of the world. The probability is
that of the three million nominal Presbyterians, not more
than two or three hundred thousand actually believe the
doctrine, and of the two or three hundred thousand, not
more than five or six hundred have any true conception of
what the doctrine is. As the Presbyterian Church has only
been able to induce one-fifth of one per cent, of the people to
even call themselves Presbyterians, about how long will it
take, at this rate, to convert mankind ? The fact is, there
seems to be a general lull along the entire line, and just at
present very little is being done by the orthodox people to
keep their fellow-citizens out of hell.

Question. Do you really think that the orthodox people
now believe in the old doctrine of eternal punisment, and
that they really think there is the kind of hell that our an
cestors so carefully described?

Answer. I am afraid that the old idea is dying out, and
that many Christians are slowly giving up the consolations
naturally springing from the old belief. Another terrible
blow to the old infamy is the fact that in the revised New
Testament the consoling word hell has been left out. I am
informed that in the revised New Testament the word Hades
has been substituted. As nobody knows exactly what Hades
means, it will not be quite so easy to frighten people at re
vivals by threatening them with something that they don't
clearly understand. After this, when the impassioned orator
cries out that all the unconverted will be sent to Hades, the
poor sinners, instead of getting frightened, will begin to ask

INTERVIEWS. 71

each other what and where that is. It will take many years
of preaching to clothe that word in all the terrors and hor
rors, pains and penalties and pangs of hell. Hades is a
compromise. It is a concession to the philosophy of our
day. It is a graceful acknowledgment to the growing spirit
of investigation, that hell, after all, is a barbaric mistake.
Hades is the death of revivals. It cannot be used in song.
It won't rhyme with anything with the same force that hell
does. It is altogether more shadowy than hot. It is not
associated with brimstone and flame. It sounds somewhat
indistinct, somewhat lonesome, a little desolate, but not al
together uncomfortable. For revival purposes, Hades is
simply useless, and few conversions will be made in the old
way under the revised Testament.

Question. Do you really think that the church is losing
ground ?

Answer. I am not, as you probably know, connected with
any orthodox organization, and consequently have to rely
upon them for my information. If they can be believed, the
church is certainly in an extremely bad condition. I find
that the Rev. Dr. Cuyler, only a few days ago, speaking of
the religious condition of Brooklyn — and Brooklyn, you
know, has been called the City of Churches — stated that the
great mass of that Christian city was out of Christ, and that
more professing Christians went to the theatre than to the
prayer meeting. This, certainly, from their standpoints a
most terrible declaration. Brooklyn, you know, is one of
the great religious centres of the world — a city in which
nearly all the people are engaged either in delivering or in
hearing sermons ; a city filled with the editors of religious
periodicals; a city of prayer and praise ; and yet, while
prayer meetings are free, the theatres, with the free list en
tirely suspended, catch more Christians than the churches ;
and this happens while all the pulpits thunder against the
stage, and the stage remains silent as to the pulpit. At the

72 INTERVIEWS.

same meeting in which the Rev. Dr. Cuyler made his
astounding statements the Rev Mr. Pentecost was the bearer
of the happjr news that four out of five persons living in the
city of Brooklyn were going down to hell with no God and
with no hope. If he had read the revised Testament he
would have said " Hades," and the effect of the statement
would have been entirely lost. If four-fifths of the people of
that great city are destined to eternal pain, certainly we can
not depend upon churches for the salvation of the world. At
the meeting of the Brooklyn pastors they were in doubt as
to whether they should depend upon further meetings, or
upon a day of fasting and prayer for the purpose of convert
ing the city.

In my judgment, it would be much better to devise ways
and means to keep a good many people from fasting in
Brooklyn. If they had more meat, they could get along with
less meeting. If fasting would save a city, there are always
plenty of hungry folks even in that Christian town. The
real trouble with the church of to-day is, that it is behind
the intelligence of the people. Its doctrines no longer satisfy
the brains of the nineteenth century ; and if the church
proposes to hold its power, it must lose its superstitions.
The day of revivals is gone. Only the ignorant and un
thinking can hereafter be impressed by hearing the ortho
dox creed. Fear has in it no reformatory power, and the
more intelligent the world grows the more despicable and
contemptible the doctrine of eternal misery will become.
The tendency of the age is toward intellectual liberty, to
ward personal investigation. Authority is no longer taken
for truth. People are beginning to find that all the great and
good are not dead — that some good people are alive, and that
the demonstrations of to-day are fully equal to the mistaken
theories of the past.

Question. How are you getting along with Delaware ?

Answer. First rate. You know I have been wondering

INTERVIEWS. 73

where Comegys came from, and at last I have made the dis
covery. I was told the other day by a gentleman from Del
aware that many years ago Colonel Hazelitt died ; that
Colonel Hazelitt was an old Revolutionary officer, and that
when they were digging his grave they dug up Comegys.
Back of that no one knows anything of his history. The
only thing they know about him certainly, is, that he has
never changed one of his views since he was found, and that
he never will. I am inclined to think, however, that he lives
in a community congenial to him. For instance, I saw in a
paper the other day that within a radius of thirty miles
around Georgetown, Delaware, there are about two hundred
orphan and friendless children. These children, it seems,
were indentured to Delaware farmers by the managers of
orphan asylums and other public institutions in and about
Philadelphia. It is stated in the paper, that :

Many of these farmers are rough task-masters, and if a boy fails
to perform the work of an adult, he is almost certain to be cruelly
treated, half starved, and in the coldest weather wretchedly clad. If
he does the work, his life is not likely to be much happier, for as a
rule he will receive more kicks than candy. The result in either case
is almost certain to be wrecked constitutions, dwarfed bodies, round
ed shoulders, and limbs crippled or rendered useless by frost or rheu
matism. The principal diet of these boys is corn pone. A few days
ago, Constable W. H. Johnston went to the house of Reuben Taylor,
and on entering the sitting room his attention was attracted by the
moans of its only occupant, a little colored boy, who was lying on the
hearth in front of the fireplace. The boy's head was covered with
ashes from the fire, and he did not pay the slightest attention to the
visitor, until Johnston asked what made him cry. Then the little
fellow sat up and drawing an old rag off his foot said, " Look there."
The sight that met Johnston's eye was horrible beyond description.
The poor boy's feet were so horribly frozen that the flesh had dropped
off the toes until the bones protruded. The flesh on the sides, bot
toms and tops of his feet was swollen until the skin cracked in many
places, and the inflamed flesh was sloughing off in great flakes. The
frost-bitten flesh extended to his knees, the joints of which were terri
bly inflamed. The right one had already begun suppurating. This
poor little black boy, covered with nothing but a cotton shirt, drilling

74 INTERVIEWS.

pants, a pair of nearly worn out brogans and a battered old hat, on
the morning of December soth, the coldest day of the season, when
the mercury was seventeen degrees below zero, in the face of a driv
ing snow storm, was sent half a mile from home to protect his master's
unshucked corn from the depredations of marauding cows and crows.
He remained standing around in the snow until four o'clock, then he
drove the cows home, received a piece of cold corn pone, and was
sent out in the snow again to chop stove wood till dark. Having no
bed, he slept that night in front of the fireplace, with his frozen feet
buried in the ashes. Dr. C. H. Richards found it necessary to cut off
the boy's feet as far back as the ankle and the instep.

This was but one case in several. Personally, I have no
doubt that Mr. Reuben Taylor entirely agrees with Chief
Justice Comegys on the great question of blasphemy, and
probably nothing would so gratify Mr. Reuben Taylor as to
see some man in a Delaware jail for the crime of having
expressed an honest thought. No wonder that in the State
of Delaware the Christ of intellectual liberty has been cruci
fied between the pillory and the whipping-post. Of course I
know that there are thousands of most excellent people in
that State — people who believe in intellectual liberty, and who
only need a little help — and I am doing what I can in that
direction — to repeal the laws that now disgrace the statute
book of that little commonwealth. I have seen many people
from that State lately who really wish that Colonel Hazelitt
had never died.

Question. What has the press generally said with regard
to the action of Judge Comegys ? Do they, so far as you
know, justify his charge ?

Answer. A great many papers having articles upon the
subject have been sent to me. A few of the religious papers
seem to think that the Judge did the best he knew, and
there is one secular paper called the Evening News, published
at Chester, Pa., that thinks " that the rebuke from so high a
source of authority will have a most excellent effect, and
will check religious blasphemers from parading their im
moral creeds before the people." The editor of this paper

INTERVIEWS. 75

should at once emigrate to the State of Delaware, where he
properly belongs. He is either a native of Delaware, or most
of his subscribers are citizens of that country ; or, it may be
that he is a lineal descendant of some Hessian, who deserted
during the Revolutionary war. Most of the newspapers in
the United States are advocates of mental freedom. Prob
ably nothing on earth has been so potent for good as an un-
trammeled, fearless press. Among the papers of importance
there is not a solitary exception. No leading journal in the
United States can be found upon the side of intellectual
slavery. Of course, a few rural sheets edited by gentlemen,
as Mr. Greeley would say, " whom God in his inscrutable
wisdom had allowed to exist," may be found upon the other
side, and may be small enough, weak enough and mean
enough to pander to the lowest and basest prejudices of their
most ignorant subscribers. These editors disgrace their
profession and exert about the same influence upon the heads
as upon the pockets of their subscribers — that is to say,
they get little and give less.

Question. Do you not think after all, the people who are
in favor of having you arrested for blasphemy, are acting
in accordance with the real spirit of the Old and New Testa
ments ?

Answer. Of course, they act in exact accordance with many
of the commands in the Old Testament, and in accordance
with several passages in the New. At the same time, it may
be said that they violate passages in both. If the Old Testa
ment is true, and if it is the inspired word of God, of course,
an Infidel ought not to be allowed to live ; and if the New
Testament is true, an unbeliever should not be permitted to
speak. There are many passages, though, in the New
Testament, that should protect even an Infidel. Among
them this : " Do unto others as j-e would that others should
do unto you." But that is a passage that has probably had
as little effect upon the church as any other in the Bible.

76 INTERVIEWS.

vSo far as I am concerned, I am willing to adopt that pas
sage, and I am willing to extend to every other human be
ing every right that I claim for myself. If the churches
would act upon this principle, if they would say — every
soul, every mind, may think and investigate for itself ; and
around all, and over all, shall be thrown the sacred shield
of liberty, I should be on their side.

Question. How do you stand with the clergymen, and
what is their opinion of you and of your views ?

Answer. Most of them envy me ; envy my independence ;
envy my success ; think that I ought to starve ; that the
people should not hear me ; say that I do what I do for
money, for popularity ; that I am actuated by hatred of all
that is good and tender and holy in human nature ; think
that I wish to tear down the churches, destroy all morality
and goodness, and usher in the reign of crime and chaos.
They know that shepherds are unnecessary in the absence
of wolves, and it is to their interest to convince their sheep
that they, the sheep, need protection. This they are willing
to give them for half the wool. No doubt, most of these
ministers are honest, and are doing what they consider their
duty. Be this as it may, they feel the power slipping from
their hands. They know that they are not held in the es
timation they once were. They know that the idea is slowly
growing that they are not absolutely necessary for the
protection of society. They know that the intellectual
world cares little for what they say, and that the great tide
of human progress flows on careless of their help or hin
drance. So long as they insist on the inspiration of the
Bible, they are compelled to take the ground that slavery
was once a divine institution ; they are forced to defend
cruelties that would shock the heart of a savage, and besides,
they are bound to teach the eternal horror of everlasting
punishment.

Thejr poison the minds of children ; they deform the brain

INTERVIEWS. 77

and pollute the imagination by teaching the frightful and
infamous dogma of endless misery. Even the laws of Dela
ware shock the enlightened public of to-day. In that State
they simply fine and imprison a man for expressing his
honest thoughts ; and yet, if the churches are right, God
will damn a man forever for the same offence. The brain
and heart of our time cannot be satisfied with the ancient
creeds. The Bible must be revised again. Most of the
creeds must be blotted out. Humanity must take the place
of theology. Intellectual liberty must stand in every pulpit.
There must be freedom in all the pews, and every human
soul must have the right to express its honest thought. —

Washington correspondent, Brooklyn Eagle, March 19, 1881.

A REPLY TO THE REV. MR. LANSING.*

Question. Did you favor the sending of obscene matter
through the mails as alleged by the Rev. Mr. Lansing ?

Answer. Of course not, and no honest man ever thought
that I did. This charge is too malicious and silly to be
answered. Mr. Lansing knows better. He has made this
charge many times and he will make it again.

Question. Is it a fact that there are thousands of clergy
men in the country whom you would fear to meet in fair
debate ?

Answer. No ; the fact is I would like to meet them all
in one. The pulpit is not burdened with genius. There
are a few great men engaged in preaching, but they are not
orthodox. I cannot conceive that a Freethinker has any
thing to fear from the pulpit, except misrepresentation. Of
course, there are thousand of ministers too small to discuss
with — ministers who stand for nothing in the church — and
with such clergymen I cannot afford to discuss anything.
If the Presbyterians, or the Congregationalists, or the

* Rev. Isaac J. Lansing of Meriden, Conn., recently denounced Col. Robert G.
Ingersoll from the pulpit of the Meriden Methodist Church, and had the Opera
House closed against him. This led a Union reporter to show Colonel Ingersoll
what Mr. Lansing had said and to interrogate him with the following result.

7$ INTERVIEWS.

Methodists would select some man, and endorse him as
their champion, I would like to meet him in debate. Such
a man I will pay to discuss with me. I will give him most
excellent wages, and pay all the expenses of the discussion
besides. There is but one safe course for ministers — they
must assert. They must declare. They must swear to it
and stick to it, but they must not try to reason.

Question. You have never seen Rev. Mr. Lansing. To
the people of Meriden and thereabouts he is well-known.
Judging from what has been told you of his utterances and
actions, what kind of a man would you take him to be?

Answer. I would take him to be a Christian. He talks
like one, and he acts like one. If Christianity is right,
Lansing is right. If salvation depends upon belief, and if
unbelievers are to be eternally damned, then an Infidel has
no right to speak. He should not be allowed to murder
the souls of his fellow-men. Lansing does the best he
knows how. He thinks that God hates an unbeliever, and
he tries to act like God. Lansing knows that he must
have the right to slander a man whom God is to eternally
damn.

Question. Mr. Lansing speaks of you as a wolf coming
with fangs sharpened by three hundred dollars a night to
tear the lambs of his flock. What do you say to that ?

Answer. All I have to say is, that I often get three times
that amount, and sometimes much more. I guess his lambs
can take care of themselves. I am not very fond of mutton
anyway. Such talk Mr. Lansing ought to be ashamed of.
The idea that he is a shepherd — that he is on guard — is
simply preposterous. He has few sheep in his congregation
that know as little on the wolf question as he does. He
ought to know that his sheep support him — his sheep pro
tect him ; and without the sheep poor Lansing would be
devoured by the wolves himself.

Question. Shall you sue the Opera House management for
breach of contract?

INTERVIEWS. 79

Answer. I guess not ; but I may pay Lansing something
for advertising my lecture. I suppose Mr. Wilcox (who
controls the Opera House) did what he thought was right.
I hear that he is a good man. He probably got a little
frightened and began to think about the day of judgment.
He could not help it, and I cannot help laughing at him.

Question. Those in Meriden who most strongly oppose
you are radical Republicans. Is it not a fact that you
possess the confidence and friendship of some of the most
respected leaders of that party ?

Answer. I think that all the respectable ones are friends
of mine. I am a Republican because I believe in the liberty
of the body, and I am an Infidel because I believe in the
liberty of the mind. There is no need of freeing cages.
Let us free the birds. If Mr. Lansing knew me, he would
be a great friend. He would probably annoy me by the
frequency and length of his visits.

Qiiestion. During the recent presidential campaign did
any clergymen denounce you for your teachings, that you
are aware of?

Answer. Some did, but they would not if they had been
running for office on the Republican ticket.

Question. What is most needed in our public men ?

Answer. Hearts and brains.

Question. Would people be any more moral solely because
of a disbelief in orthodox teaching and in the Bible as an
inspired book, in your opinion ?

Answer. Yes ; if a man really believes that God once
upheld slavery; that he commanded soldiers to kill women
and babes ; that he believed in polygamy ; that he persecuted
for opinion's sake; that he will punish forever, and that he
hates an unbeliever, the effect in my judgment will be bad.
It always has been bad. This belief built the dungeons of
the Inquisition. This belief made the Puritan murder the
Quaker, and this belief has raised the devil with Mr.

80 INTERVIEWS.

Question. Do you believe there will ever be a millennium,
and if so how will it come about?

Answer. It will probably start in Meriden, as I have been
informed that Lansing is going to leave.

Question. Is there anything else bearing upon the question
at issue or that would make good reading, that I have for
gotten, that you would like to say ?

Answer. Yes. Good-bye. — The Sunday Union, New Haven, Conn.
A.pril 10, 1881.

BEACONSFIELD, LENT AND REVIVALS.

Question. What have you to say about the attack of Dr.
Buckley on you, and your lecture ?

Answer. I never heard of Dr. Buckley until after I had
lectured in Brooklyn. He seems to think that it was ex
tremely ill bred in me to deliver a lecture on the " Liberty
of Man, Woman and Child, "during Lent. Lent is just as good
as any other part of the year, and no part can be too good
to do good. It was not a part of my object to hurt the feel
ings of the Episcopalians and Catholics. If they think that
there is some subtle relation between hunger and heaven, or
that faith depends upon, or is strengthened by famine, or
that veal, during Lent, is the enemy of virtue, or that beef
breeds blasphemy, while fish feeds faith — of course, all this
is nothing to me. They have a right to say that vice
depends on victuals, sanctity on soup, religion on rice and
chastity on cheese, but they have no right to say that a
lecture on liberty is an insult to them because they are
hungry. I suppose that Lent was instituted in memory of
the Savior's fast. At one time it was supposed that only
a divine being could live forty days without food. This
supposition has been overthrown.

It has been demonstrated by Dr. Tanner to be utterly
without foundation. What possible good did it do the
world for Christ to go without food for forty days ? Why

INTERVIEWS. 8 1

should we follow such an example? As a rule, hungry
people are cross, contrary, obstinate, peevish and unpleas
ant. A good dinner puts a man at peace with all the world
— makes him generous, good natured and happy. He feels
like kissing his wife and children. The future looks
bright. He wants to help the needy. The good in him
predominates, and he wonders that any man was ever
stingy or cruel. Your good cook is a civilizer, and without
good food, well prepared, intellectual progress is simply im
possible. Most of the orthodox creeds were born of bad
cooking. Bad food produced dyspepsia, and dyspepsia
produced Calvinism, and Calvinism is the cancer of Chris
tianity. Oatmeal is responsible for the worst features of
Scotch Presbyterianism. Half cooked beans account for
the religion of the Puritans. Fried bacon and saleratus
biscuit underlie the doctrine of State Rights. Lent is a
mistake, fasting is a blunder, and bad cooking is a crime.

Question. It is stated that you went to Brooklyn while
Beecher and Talmage were holding revivals, arid that you
did so for the purpose of breaking them up. How is this ?

Answer. I had not the slightest idea of interfering with
the revivals. They amounted to nothing. They were not
alive enough to be killed. Surely one lecture could not
destroy two revivals. Still, I think that if all the persons
engaged in the revivals had spent the same length of time
in cleaning the streets, the good result would have been
more apparent. The truth is, that the old way of convert
ing people will have to be abandoned. The Americans are
getting hard to scare, and a revival without the "scare" is
scarcely worth holding. Such maniacs as Hammond and
the "Boy Preacher" fill asylums and terrify children.
After saying what he has about hell, Mr. Beecher ought to
know that he is not the man to conduct a revival. A
revival sermon with hell left out — with the brimstone gone —
with the worm that never dies, dead, and the Devil absent —

82 INTERVIEWS.

is the broadest farce. Mr. Talmage believes in the ancient
way. With him hell is a burning reality. He can hear
the shrieks and groans. He is of that order of mind that
rejoices in these things. If he could only convince others,
he would be a great revivalist. He cannot terrify, he as
tonishes. He is the clown of the horrible — one of Jehovah's
jesters. I am not responsible for the revival failure in
Brooklyn. I wish I were. I would have the happiness of
knowing that I had been instrumental in preserving the
sanity of my fellow-men.

Question. How do you account for these attacks?

Answer. It was not so much what I said that excited the
wrath of the reverend gentlemen as the fact that I had a
great house. They contrasted their failure with my success.
The fact is, the people are getting tired of the old ideas.
They are beginning to think for themselves. Eternal pun
ishment seems to them like eternal revenge. They see that
Christ could not atone for the sins of others; that belief
ought not to be rewarded and honest doubt punished forever;
that good deeds are better than bad creeds, and that liberty
is the rightful heritage of every soul.

Question. Were you an admirer of Lord Beaconsfield?

Answer. In some respects. He was on our side during
the war, and gave it as his opinion that the Union would be
preserved. Mr. Gladstone congratulated Jefferson Davis on
having founded a new nation. I shall never forget Beacons-
field for his kindness, nor Gladstone for his malice.
Beaconsfield was an intellectual gymnast, a political athlete,
one of the most adroit men in the world. He had the per
sistence of his race. In spite of the prejudices of eighteen
hundred years, he rose to the highest position that can be
occupied by a citizen. During his administration England
again became a Continental power and played her game of
European chess. I have never regarded Beaconsfield as a
man controlled by principle, or by his heart. He was

INTERVIEWS. 83

strictly a politician. He always acted as though he thought
the clubs were looking at him. He knew all the arts
belonging to his trade. He would have succeeded any
where, if by "succeeding" is meant the attainment of posi
tion and power. But after all, such men are splendid
failures. They give themselves and others a great deal of
trouble — they wear the tinsel crown of temporary success
and then fade from public view. They astonish the pit,
they gain the applause of the galleries, but when the curtain
falls there is nothing left to benefit mankind. Beaconsfield
held convictions somewhat in contempt. He had the
imagination of the East united with the ambition of an
Englishman. With him, to succeed was to have done right.

Question. What do you think of him as an author?

Answer. Most of his characters are like himself — puppets
moved by the string of ' self-interest. The men are adroit,
the women mostly heartless. They catch each other with
false bait. They have great worldly wisdom. Their virtue
and vice are mechanical. They have hearts like clocks —
filled with wheels and springs. The author winds them up.
In his novels Disraeli allows us to enter the greenroom of
his heart. We see the ropes, the pulleys and the old
masks. In all things, in politics and in literature, he was
cold, cunning, accurate, able and successful. His books
will, in a little while, follow their author to their grave.

After all, the good Will live longest. — Washington Correspondent,
Brooklyn Eagle^ April 24, 1881.

ANSWERING THE NEW YORK MINISTERS.*

Question, Have you seen the attacks made upon you by
certain ministers of New York, published in the Herald
last Sunday ?

Answer. Yes, I read, or heard read, what was in Monday's
Herald. I do not know that you could hardly call them
attacks. They are substantially a repetition of what the
pulpit has been saying for a great many hundred years, and
what the pulpit will say just so long as men are paid for
suppressing truth and for defending superstition. One of
these gentlemen tells the lambs of his flock that three
thousand men and a few women — probably with quite an
emphasis on the word " Few " — gave one dollar each to
hear their Maker cursed and their Savior ridiculed. Prob
ably nothing is so hard for the average preacher to bear as
the fact that people are not only willing to hear the other
side, but absolutely anxious to pay for it. The dollar that
these people paid hurt their feelings vastly more than what
was said after they were in. Of course, it is a frightful
commentary on the average intellect of the pulpit that a
minister cannot get so large an audience when he preaches
for nothing, as an Infidel can draw at a dollar a head. If
I depended upon a contribution box, or upon passing a
saucer that would come back to the stage enriched with a
few five cent pieces, eight or ten dimes, and a lonesome

• Ever since Colonel Ingersoll began the delivery of his lecture called The Great
Infidels, the ministers of the country have made him the subject of special attack.
One week ago last Sunday the majority of the leading ministers in New York made
replies to Ingersoll's latest lecture. What he has to say to these replies will be
found in a report of an interview with Colonel Ingersoll. No man is harder to pin
down for a long talk than the Colonel. He is so beset with visitors and eager office
seekers anxious for his help, that he can hardly find five minutes unoccupied during
an entire day. Through the shelter of a private room and the guardianship of a
stout colored servant, the Colonel was able to escape the crowd of seekers after his
personal charity long enough to give him time to answer some of the ministerial
arguments advanced against him in New York. (84)

INTERVIEWS. 85

quarter, these gentlemen would, in all probability, imagine
Infidelity was not to be feared.

The churches were all open on that Sunday, and all
could go who desired. Yet they were not full, and the pews
were nearly as empty of people as the pulpit of ideas. The
truth is, the story is growing old, the ideas somewhat moss-
covered, and everything has a wrinkled and withered
appearance. This gentleman says that these people went
to hear their Maker cursed and their Savior ridiculed. Is
it possible that in a city where so many steeples pierce the
air, and hundreds of sermons are preached every Sunday,
there are three thousand men, and a few women, so anxious
to hear " their Maker cursed and their Savior ridiculed"
that they are willing to pay a dollar each ? The gentleman
knew that nobody cursed anybody's Maker. He knew
that the statement was utterly false and without the slight
est foundation. He also knew that nobody had ridiculed
the Savior of anybody, but, on the contrary, that I had
paid a greater tribute to the character of Jesus Christ than
any minister in New York has the capacity to do. Cer
tainly it is not cursing the Maker of anybody to say that
the God described in the Old Testament is not the real
God. Certainly it is not cursing God to declare that the
real God never sanctioned slaverjr or polygamy, or com
manded wars of extermination, or told a husband to
separate from his wife if she differed with him in religion.
The people who say these things of God — if there is any
God at all — do what little there is in their power, unwit
tingly of course, to destroy his reputation. But I have
done something to rescue the reputation of the Deity
from the slanders of the pulpit. If there is any God, I
expect to find myself credited on the heavenly books for
my defence of him. I did say that our civilization is due
not to piety, but to Infidelity. I did say that every great
reformer had been denounced as an Infidel in his day and

86 INTERVIEWS.

generation. I did say that Christ was an Infidel, and that
he was treated in his day very much as the orthodox
preachers treat an honest man now. I did say that he was
tried for blasphemy and crucified by bigots. I did say
that he hated and despised the church of his time, and
that he denounced the most pious people of Jerusalem as
thieves and vipers. And I suggested that should he come
again he might have occasion to repeat the remarks that
he then made. At the same time I admitted that there are
thousands and thousands of Christians who are exceed
ingly good people. I never did pretend that the fact that
a man was a Christian even tended to show that he was
a bad man. Neither have I ever insisted that the fact that
a man is an Infidel even tends to show what, in other
respects, his character is. But I always have said, and I
always expect to say, that a Christian who does not believe
in absolute intellectual liberty is a curse to mankind, and
that an Infidel who does believe in absolute intellectual
liberty is a blessing to this world. We cannot expect all
Infidels to be good, nor all Christians to be bad, and we
might make some mistakes even if we selected these people
ourselves. It is admitted by the Christians that Christ
made a great mistake when he selected Judas. This was a
mistake of over eight per cent.

Chaplain Newman takes pains to compare some great
Christians with some great Infidels. He compares Wash
ington with Julian, and insists, I suppose, that Washington
was a great Christian. Certainly he is not very familiar
with the history of Washington, or he never would claim
that he was particularly distinguished in his day for what
is generally known as vital piety. That he went through
the ordinary forms of Christianity nobody disputes. That
he listened to sermons without paying any particular at
tention to them, no one will deny. Julian, of course, was
somewhat prejudiced against Christianity, but that he was

INTERVIEWS. 87

one of the greatest men of antiquity no one acquainted
with the history of Rome can honestly dispute. When he
was made emperor he found at the palace hundreds of
gentlemen who acted as barbers, hair-combers, and
brushers for the emperor. He dismissed them all, remark
ing that he was able to wash himself. These dismissed
office-holders started the story that he was dirty in his
habits, and a minister of the nineteenth century was found
silly enough to believe the story. Another thing that prob
ably got him into disrepute in that day, he had no private
chaplains. As a matter of fact, Julian was forced to pretend
that he was a Christian in order to save his life. The
Christians of that day were of such a loving nature that
any man who differed with them was forced to either fall a
victim to their ferocity or seek safety in subterfuge. The
real crime that Julian committed, and the only one that
has burned itself into the very heart and conscience of the
Christian world, is, that he transferred the revenues of
Christian churches to heathen priests. Whoever stands
between a priest and his salary will find that he has com
mitted the unpardonable sin commonly known as the sin
against the Holy Ghost.

This gentleman also compares Luther with Voltaire. If
he will read the life of Luther by Lord Brougham, he will
find that in his ordinary conversation he was exceedingly
low and vulgar, and that no respectable English publisher
could be found who would soil paper with the translation.
If he will take the pains to read an essay by Macaulay, he
will find that twenty years after the death of Luther there
were more Catholics than when he was born. And that
twenty years after the death of Voltaire there were millions
less than when he was born. If he will take just a few
moments to think, he will find that the last victory of Pro
testantism was won in Holland ; that there has never been
one since, and will never be another. If he would really

88 INTERVIEWS.

like to think, and enjoy for a few moments the luxury of
having an idea, let him ponder for a little while over the
instructive fact that languages having their root in the
Latin have generally been spoken in Catholic countries ;
and that those languages having their root in the ancient
German are now mostly spoken by people of Protestant
proclivities. It may occur to him, after thinking of this a
while, that there is something deeper in the question than
he has as yet perceived. Luther's last victory, as I .said
before, was in Holland; but the victory of Voltaire goes
on from day to day. Protestantism is not holding its own
with Catholicism, even in the United States. I saw the
other day the statistics, I believe, of the city of Chicago,
showing that, while the city had increased two or three
hundred per cent., Protestantism had lagged behind at the
rate of twelve per cent. I am willing for one, to have the
whole question depend upon a comparison of the worth
and work of Voltaire and Luther. It may be, too, that the
gentleman forgot to tell us that Luther himself gave con
sent to a person high in office to have two wives, but
prudently suggested to him that he had better keep it as
still as possible. Luther was, also, a believer in a personal
Devil. He thought that deformed children had been be
gotten by an evil spirit. On one occasion he told a mother
that, in his judgment, she had better drown her child ;
that he had no doubt the Devil was its father. This same
Luther made this observation: "Universal toleration is
universal error, and universal error is universal hell."
From this you will see that he was an exceedingly good
man, but mistaken upon many questions. So, too, he
laughed at the Copernican system, and wanted to know if
these fool astronomers could undo the work of God. He
probably knew as little about science as the reverend gen
tlemen does about history.

Question. Does he compare any other Infidels with
Christians ?

INTERVIEWS. 89

Answer. Oh, yes ; he compares Lord Bacon with Diderot.
I have never claimed that Diderot was a saint. I have
simply insisted that he was a great man ; that he was
grand enough to say that " incredulity is the beginning of
philosophy ; " that he had sense enough to know that the
God described by the Catholics and Protestants of his day
was simply an impossible monster ; and that he also had
the brain to see that the little selfish heaven occupied by a
few monks and nuns and idiots that they had fleeced, was
hardly worth going to ; in other words, that he was a man
of common sense, greatly in advance of his time, and that
he did what he could to increase the sum of human enjoy
ment to the end that there might be more happiness in this
world.

The gentleman compares him with Lord Bacon, and yet,
if he will read the trials of that day — I think in the year
1620 — he will find that the Christian Lord Bacon, the pious
Lord Bacon, was charged with receiving pay for his
opinions, and, in some instances, pay from both sides ; that
the Christian Lord Bacon, at first upon his honor as a
Christian lord, denied the whole business ; that afterward
the Christian Lord Bacon, upon his honor as a Christian
lord, admitted the truth of the whole business, and that,
therefore, the Christian Lord Bacon was convicted and
sentenced to pay a fine of forty thousand pounds, and ren
dered infamous and incapable of holding any office. Now,
understand me, I do not think Bacon took bribes because
he was a Christian, because there have been many Chris
tian judges perfectly honest ; but, if the statement of the
reverend gentleman of New York is true, his being a
Christian did not prevent his taking bribes. And right
here allow me to thank the gentleman with all my heart
for having spoken of Lord Bacon in this connection. I
have always admired the genius of Bacon, and have always
thought of his fall with an aching heart, and would not

gO INTERVIEWS.

now have spoken of his crime had not his character been
flung in my face by a gentleman who asks his God to kill
me for having expressed my honest thought.

The same gentleman compares Newton with Spinoza. In
the first place, there is no ground of parallel. Newton was
a very great man and a very justly celebrated mathemati
cian. As a matter of fact, he is not celebrated for having
discovered the law of gravitation. That was known for
thousands of years before he was born ; and if the reverend
gentleman would read a little more he would find that
Newton's discovery was not that there is such a law as
gravitation, but that bodies attract each other " with a
force proportional directly to the quantity of matter they
contain, and inversely to the squares of their distances." I
do not think he made the discoveries on account of his
Christianity. Laplace was certainly in many respects as
great a mathematician and astronomer, but he was not a
Christian.

Descartes was certainly not much inferior to Newton as
a mathematician, and thousands insist that he was his
superior ; yet he was not a Christian. Euclid, if I remem
ber right, was not a Christian, and yet he had quite a turn
forjnathematics. As a matter of fact, Christianity got its
idea of algebra from the Mohammedans, and, without
algebra, astronomical knowledge of to-day would have been
impossible. Christianity did not even invent figures. We
got those from the Arabs. The very word " algebra " is
Arabic. The decimal system, I believe, however, was due
to a German, but whether he was a Christian or not, I do
not know.

We find that the Chinese calculated eclipses long
before Christ was born; and, exactness being the rule
at that time, there is an account of two astronomers having
been beheaded for failing to tell the coming of an eclipse
to the minute; yet they were not Christians. There is

INTERVIEWS. 9!

another fact connected with Newton, and that is that he
wrote a commentary on the Book of Revelation. The
probability is that a sillier commentary was never written.
It was so perfectly absurd and laughable that some one — I
believe it was Voltaire — said that while Newton had ex
cited the envy of the intellectual world by his mathemat
ical accomplishments, it had gotten even with him the
moment his commentaries were published. Spinoza was
not a mathematician, particularly. He was a metaphysi
cian, an honest thinker, whose influence is felt and will be
felt so long as these great questions have the slightest in
terest for the human brain.

He also compares Chalmers with Hume. Chalmers gained
his notoriety from preaching what are known as the astrono
mical sermons, and, I suppose, was quite a preacher in his
day.

But Hume was a thinker, and his works will live for
ages after Mr. Chalmers' sermons will have been forgotten.
Mr. Chalmers has never been prominent enough to have
been well known by many people. He may have been an
exceedingly good man, and derived, during his life, great
consolation from a belief in the damnation of infants.

Mr. Newman also compares Wesley with Thomas Paine.
When Thomas Paine was in favor of human liberty, Wesley
was against it. Thomas Paine wrote a pamphlet called
" Common Sense," urging the colonies to separate themselves
from Great Britain. Wesley wrote a treatise on the other
side. He was the enemy of human liberty; and if his
advice could have been followed we would have been the
colonies of Great Britain still. We never would have had a
President in need of a private chaplain. Mr. Wesley had
not a scientific mind. He preached a sermon once on the
cause and cure of earthquakes, taking the ground that earth
quakes were caused by sins, and that the only way to stop
them was to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. He also laid

92 INTERVIEWS.

down some excellent rules for rearing children, that is, f rotr.
a Methodist standpoint. His rules amounted to about this :

First. Never give them what they want.

Second. Never give them what you intend to give them,
at the time they want it.

Third. Break their wills at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Wesley made every family an inquisition, every father
and mother inquisitors, and all the children helpless victims.
One of his homes would give an exceedingly vivid idea of
hell. At the same time, Mr. Wesley was a believer in witches
and wizards, and knew all about the Devil. At his request
God performed many miracles. On several occasions he
cured his horse of lameness. On others, dissipated Mr.
Wesley's headaches. Now and then he put off rain on ac
count of a camp meeting, and at other times stopped the
wind blowing at the special request of Mr. Wesley. I have
no doubt that Mr. Wesley was honest in all this, — just
as honest as he was mistaken. And I also admit that he was
the founder of a church that does extremely well in new
countries, and that thousands of Methodists have been ex
ceedingly good men. But I deny that he ever did anything
for human liberty. While Mr. Wesley was fighting the
Devil and giving his experience with witches and wizards,
Thomas Paine helped to found a free nation, helped to enrich
the air with another flag. Wesley was right on one thing,
though: He was opposed to slavery, and, I believe, called it
the sum of all villainies. I have always been obliged to him
for that. I do not think he said it because he was a Metho
dist ; but Methodism, as he understood it, did not prevent
his saying it, and Methodism as others understood it, did
not prevent men from being slaveholders, did not prevent
them from selling babes from mothers, and in the name of
God beating the naked back of toil. I think, on the whole,
Paine did more for the world than Mr. Wesley. The differ
ence between an average Methodist and an average Episco-

INTERVIEWS. 93

palian is not worth quarreling about. But the difference be
tween a man who believes in despotism and one who believes
in liberty is almost infinite. Wesley changed Episcopalians
into Methodists ; Paine turned lickspittles into men. Let it
be understood, once for all, that I have never claimed that
Paine was perfect. I was very glad that the reverend gen
tleman admitted that he was a patriot and the foe of tyrants ;
that he sympathized with the oppressed, and befriended the
helpless ; that he favored religious toleration, and that he
weakened the power of the Catholic Church. I am glad that
he made these admissions. Whenever it can be truthfully
said of a man that he loved his country, hated tyranny,
sympathized with the oppressed, and befriended the helpless,
nothing more is necessary. If God can afford to damn such
a man, such a man can afford to be damned. While Paine
was the foe of tyrants, Christians were the tyrants. When
he sympathized with the oppressed, the oppressed were the
victims of Christians. When he befriended the helpless, the
helpless were the victims of Christians. Paine never founded
an inquisition ; never tortured a human being ; never hoped
that anybody's tongue would be paralyzed, and was always
opposed to private chaplains.

It might be well for the reverend gentleman to continue
his comparisons, and find eminent Christians to put, for in
stance, along with Humboldt, the Shakespeare of science ;
somebody by the side of Darwin, as a naturalist ; some gen
tleman in England to stand with Tyndall, or Huxley ; some
Christian German to stand with Haeckel and Helmholtz.
May be he knows some Christian statesman that he would
compare with Gambetta. I would advise him to continue
his parallels.

Question. What have you to say of the Rev. Dr. Fulton ?

Answer. The Rev. Dr. Fulton is a great friend of mine.
I am extremely sorry to find that he still believes in a per
sonal Devil, and I greatly regret that he imagines that this

94 INTERVIEWS.

Devil has so much power that he can take possession of a
human being and deprive God of their services. It is in
sorrow and not in anger, that I find that he still believes in
this ancient superstition. I also regret that he imagines that
I am leading young men to eternal ruin. It occurs to me
that if there is an infinite God, he ought not to allow anybody
to lead young men to eternal ruin. If anything I have said,
or am going to say, has a tendency to lead young men to
eternal ruin, I hope that if there is a God with the power to
prevent me, he will use it. Dr. Fulton admits that in politics
I am on the right side. I presume he makes this concession
because he is a Republican. I am in favor of universal
education, of absolute intellectual liberty. I am in favor,
also, of equal rights to all. As I have said before we have
spent millions and millions of dollars and rivers of blood to
free the bodies of men ; in other words, we have been free
ing the cages. My proposition now is to give a little liberty
to the birds. I am not willing to stop where a man can
simply reap the fruit of his hand. I wish him, also, to en
joy the liberty of his brain. I am not against any truth in
the New Testament. I did say that I objected to religion
because it made enemies and not friends. The Rev. Dr.
says that is one reason why he likes religion. Dr. Fulton
tells me that the Bible is the gift of God to man. He also
tells me that the Bible is true, and that God is its author.
If the Bible is true and God is its author, then God was in
favor of slavery four thousand years ago. He was also in
favor of polygamy and religious intolerance. In other
words, four thousand years ago he occupied the exact posi
tion the Devil is supposed to occupy now. If the Bible
teaches anything it teaches man to enslave his brother, that
is to say, if his brother is a heathen. The God of the Bible
always hated heathens. Dr. Fulton also says that the Bible
is the basis of all law. Yet, if the Legislature of New York
would re-enact next winter the Mosaic code, the members

INTERVIEWS. 95

might consider themselves lucky if they were not hung upon
their return home. Probably Dr. Fulton thinks that had
it not been for the Ten Commandments, nobody would ever
have thought that stealing was wrong. I have always
had an idea that men objected to stealing because the indus
trious did not wish to support the idle ; and I have a notion
that there has always been a law against murder, because a
large majority of people have always objected to being mur
dered. If he will read his Old Testament with care, he
will find that God violated most of his own commandments
— all except that "Thou shalt worship no other God before
me," and, may be, the commandment against work on the
Sabbath day. With these two exceptions I am satisfied that
God himself violated all the rest. He told his chosen people
to rob the Gentiles ; that violated the commandment against
stealing. He said himself that he had sent out lying
spirits ; that certainly was a violation of another command
ment. He ordered soldiers to kill men, women and babes;
that was a violation of another. He also told them to divide
the maidens among the soldiers ; that was a substantial vio
lation of another. One of the commandments was that you
should not covet your neighbor's property. In that command
ment you will find that a man's wife is put on an equality
with his ox. Yet his chosen people were allowed not only
to covet the property of the Gentiles, but to take it. If Dr.
Fulton will read a little more, he will find that all the good
laws in the Decalogue had been in force in Egypt a cen
tury before Moses was born. He will find that like laws
and many better ones were in force in India and China, long
before Moses knew what a bulrush was. If he will think a
little while, he will find that one of the Ten Commandments,
the one on the subject of graven images, was bad. The re
sult of that was that Palestine never produced a painter, or
a sculptor, and that no Jew became famous in art until long
after the destruction of Jerusalem. A commandment that

96 INTERVIEWS.

robs a people of painting and statuary is not a good one.
The idea of the Bible being the basis of law is almost too
silly to be seriously refuted. I admit that I did say that
Shakespeare was the greatest man who ever lived ; and Dr.
Fulton says in regard to this statement, " What foolishness ! "
He then proceeds to insult his audience by telling them that
while many of them have copies of Shakespeare's works in
their houses, they have not read twenty pages of them. This
fact may account for their attending his church and being
satisfied with that sermon. I do not believe to-day that
Shakespeare is more influential than the Bible, but what in
fluence Shakespeare has, is for good. No man can read it
without having his intellectual wealth increased. When
you read it, it is not necessary to throw away your reason.
Neither will you be damned if you do not understand it. It
is a book that appeals to everything in the human brain. In
that book can be found the wisdom of all ages. Long after
the Bible has passed out of existence, the name of Shakes
peare will lead the intellectual roster of the world. Dr.
Fulton says there is not one word in the Bible that teaches
that slavery or polygamy is right. He also states that I
know it. If language has meaning — if words have sense,
or the power to convey thought, — what did God mean when
he told the Israelites to buy of the heathen round about, and
that the heathen should be their bondmen and bondmaids
forever ?

What did God mean when he said, If a man strike
his servant so that he dies, he should not be punished, be
cause his servant was his money. Passages like these can
be quoted beyond the space that any paper is willing to give.
Yet the Rev. Dr. Fulton denies that the Old Testament up
holds slavery. I would like to ask him if the Old Testa
ment is in favor of religious toleration ? If God wrote the
Old Testament and afterward came upon the earth as Jesus
Christ, and taught a new religion, and the Jews crucified

INTERVIEWS. 97

him, was this not in accordance with his own law, and was
he not, after all, the victim of himself?

Question. What about the other ministers ?

Answer. Well, I see in the Herald that some ten have said
they would reply to me. I have selected the two, simply be
cause they came first. I think they are about as poor as any;
and you know it is natural to attack those who are the easiest
answered. All these ministers are now acting as my agents,
and are doing me all the good they can by saying all the
bad things about me they can think of. They imagine that
their congregations have not grown, and they talk to them
as though they were living in the seventeenth instead of the
nineteenth century. The truth is, the pews are beyond the
pulpit, and the modern sheep are now protecting the shep
herds.

Question. Have you noticed a great change in public
sentiment in the last three or four years ?

Answer. Yes, I think there are ten times as many Infidels
to-day as there were ten years ago. I am amazed at the
great change that has taken place in public opinion. The
churches are not getting along well. There are hundreds
and hundreds who have not had a new member in a year.
The young men are not satisfied with the old ideas. They
find that the church, after all, is opposed to learning ; that
it is the enemy of progress; that it says to every young man,
"Go slow. Don't allow your knowledge to puff you up.
Recollect that reason is a dangerous thing. You had better
be a little ignorant here for the sake of being .an angel here
after, than quite a smart young man and get damned at last."
The church warns them against Humboldt and Darwin, and
tells them how much nobler it is to come from mud than
from monkeys ; that they were made from mud. Every
college professor is afraid to tell what he thinks, and every
student detects the cowardice. The result is that the young
men have lost confidence in the creeds of the day and pro-

98 INTERVIEWS.

pose to do a little thinking for themselves. They still have
a kind of tender pity for the old folks, and pretend to believe
some things they do not, rather than hurt grandmother's
feelings. In the presence of the preachers they talk about
the weather and other harmless subjects, for fear of bruising
the spirit of their pastor. Every minister likes to consider
himself as a brave shepherd leading the lambs through the
green pastures and defending them at night from Infidel
wolves. All this he does for a certain share of the wool.
Others regard the church as a kind of social organization, as
a good way to get into society. They wish to attend socia
bles, drink tea, and contribute for the conversion of the hea
then. It is always so pleasant to think that there is somebody
worse than you are, whose reformation you can help pay for.
I find, too, that the young women are getting tired of the old
doctrines, and that everywhere, all over this country, the
power of the pulpit wanes and weakens. I find in my lec
tures that the applause is just in proportion to the radicalism
of the thought expressed. Our war was a great educator,
when the whole people of the North rose up grandly in favor
of human liberty. For many years the great question of
human rights was discussed from every stump. Every
paper was filled with splendid sentiments. An application
of these doctrines — doctrines born in war — will forever do
away with the bondage of superstition. When man has been
free in body for a little time, he will become free in mind,
and the man who says, "I have an equal right with other
men to work and reap the reward of my labor," will say, " I
have, also, an equal right to think and reap the reward of
my thought."

In old times there was a great difference between a clergy
man and a layman. The clergyman was educated; the
peasant was ignorant. The tables have been turned. The
thought of the world is with the laymen. They are the
Intel! *ctual pioneers, the mental leaders, and the ministers

INTERVIEWS. 99

are following on behind, predicting failure and disaster, sigh
ing for the good old times when their word ended discussion.
There is another good thing, and that is the revision of the
Bible. Hundreds of passages have been found to be inter
polations, and future revisers will find hundreds more. The
foundation crumbles. That book, called the basis of all law
and civilization, has to be civilized itself. We have out
grown it. Our laws are better; our institutions grander;
our objects and aims nobler and higher.

Question. Do many people write to you upon this subject;
and what spirit do they manifest ?

Answer. Yes, I get a great many anonymous letters — some
letters in which God is asked to strike me dead, others of an
exceedingly insulting character, others almost idiotic, others
exceedingly malicious, and others insane, others written in
an exceedingly good spirit, winding up with the information
that I must certainly be damned. Others express wonder
that God allowed me to live at all, and that, having made
the mistake, he does not instantly correct it by killing me.
Others prophesy that I will yet be a minister of the gospel ;
but, as there has never been any softening of the brain in
our family, I imagine that the prophecy will never be ful
filled. Lately, on opening a letter and seeing that it is upon
this subject, and without a signature, I throw it aside with
out reading. I have so often found them to be so grossly
ignorant, insulting and malicious, that as a rule I read them
no more.

Question. Of the hundreds of people who call upon yor
nearly every day to ask your help, do any of them ever di.c
criminate against you on account of your Infidelity ?

Answer. No one who has asked a favor of me objects to
my religion, or, rather, to my lack of it. A great many
people do come to me for assistance of one kind and another.
But I have never yet asked a man or woman whether they
were religious or not, to what church they belonged, or any

IOO INTERVIEWS.

questions upon the subject. I think I have done favors for
persons of most denominations. It never occurs to me
whether they are Christians or Infidels. I do not care. Of
course, I do not expect that Christians will treat me the
same as though I belonged to their church. I have never
expected it. In some instances I have been disappointed.
I have some excellent friends who disagree with me entirely
upon the subject of religion. My real opinion is that
secretly they like me because I am not a Christian, and
those who do not like me envy me the liberty I enjoy. —

New York correspondent, Chicago Times, May 29, 1881.

GUITEAU AND HIS CRIME.*

Question. By-the-way, Colonel, you knew Guiteau
slightly, we believe. Are you aware that it has been at
tempted to show that some money loaned or given him by
yourself was really what he purchased the pistol with ?

Answer. I knew Guiteau slightly ; I saw him for the first
time a few days after the inauguration. He wanted a con
sulate, and asked me to give him a letter to Secretary
Elaine. I refused, on the ground that I didn't know him.
Afterwards he wanted me to lend him twenty -five dollars,

•Our "Royal Bob" was found by The Gazette, in the gloaming of a delicious
evening, during the past week, within the open portals of his friendly residence,
dedicated by the gracious presence within to a simple and cordial hospitality, to
the charms of friendship and the freedom of an abounding comradeship. With in
tellectual and untrammeled life, a generous, wise and genial host, whoever enters
finds a welcome, seasoned with kindly wit and Attic humor, a poetic insight and a
delicious frankness which renders an evening there a veritable symposium. The
wayfarer who passes is charmed, and he who comes frequently, goes always away
with delighted memories.

What matters it that we differ? such as he and his make our common life the
sweeter. An hour or two spent in the attractive parlors of the Ingersoll homestead,
amid that rare group, lends a newer meaning to the idea of home and a more se
cure beauty to the fact of family life. During the pastexciting three weeks Colonel
Ingersoll has been a busy man. He holds no office. No position could lend him an
additional crown and even recognition is no longer necessary. But it has been well
that amid the first fierce fury of anger and excitement, and the subsequent more
bitter if not as noble outpouring of faction's suspicions and innuendoes, that so
manly a man, so sagacious a counsellor, has been enabled to hold so positive a bal
ance. Cabinet officers, legal functionaries, detectives, citizens— all have felt the
wise, humane instincts, and the capacious brain of this marked man affecting and
influencing for this fair equipoise and calmer judgment.

Conversing freely on the evening of this visit, Colonel Ingersoll, in the abund
ance of his pleasure at the White House news, submitted to be interviewed, and
with the following result.

INTERVIEWS. 101

and I declined. I never loaned him a dollar in the world.
If I had, I should not feel that I was guilty of trying to kill
the President. On the principle that one would hold the
man guilty who had innocently loaned the money with
which he bought the pistol, you might convict the tailor
who made his clothes. If he had had no clothes he would
not have gone to the depot naked, and the crime would not
have been committed. It is hard enough for the man who
did lend him the money to lose that, without losing his
reputation besides. Nothing can exceed the utter absurdity
of what has been said upon this subject.

Question. How did Guiteau impress you and what have
you remembered, Colonel, of his efforts to reply to your
lectures ?

Answer. I do not know that Guiteau impressed me in
any way. He appeared like most other folks in search of
a place or employment. I suppose he was in need. He
talked about the same as other people, and claimed that I
ought to help him because he was from Chicago. The
second time he came to see me he said that he hoped I had
no prejudice against him on account of what he had said
about me. I told him that I never knew he had said any
thing against me. I suppose now that he referred to what
he had said in his lectures. He went about the country
replying to me. I have seen one or two of his lectures.
He used about the same arguments that Mr. Black uses in
his reply to my article in the North American Review, and
denounced me in about the same terms. He is undoubtedly
a man who firmly believes in the Old Testament, and has
no doubt concerning the New. I understand that he puts
in most of his time now reading the Bible and rebuking
people who use profane language in his presence.

Question. You most certainly do not see any foundation
for the accusations of preachers like Sunderland, Newman
and Power, et at, that the teaching of a secular liberalism

IO2 INTERVIEWS.

has had anything to do with the shaping of Guiteau's char
acter or the actions of his vagabond life or the inciting to
his murderous deeds ?

Answer. I do not think that the sermon of Mr. Power
was in good taste. It is utterly foolish to charge the
" Stalwarts " with committing or inciting the crime against
the life of the President. Ministers, though, as a rule, know
but little of public affairs, and they always account for the
actions of people they do not like or agree with, by attribu
ting to them the lowest and basest motives. This is the
fault of the pulpit — always has been, and probably always
will be. The Rev. Dr. Newman of New York, tells us that
the crime of Guiteau shows three things : First, that
ignorant men should not be allowed to vote ; second, that
foreigners should not be allowed to vote ; and third, that
there should not be so much religious liberty.

It turns out, first, that Guiteau is not an ignorant man ;
second, that he is not a foreigner ; and third, that he is a
Christian. Now, because an intelligent American Christian
tries to murder the President, this person says we ought to
do something with ignorant foreigners and Infidels. This
is about the average pulpit logic. Of course, all the min
isters hate to admit that Guiteau was a Christian ; that he
belonged to the Young Men's Christian Association, or at
least was generally found in their rooms ; that he was the
follower of Moody and Sankey, and probably instrumental
in the salvation of a great many souls. I do not blame
them for wishing to get rid of this record. What I blame
them for is that they are impudent enough to charge the
crime of Guiteau upon Infidelity. Infidels and Atheists
have often killed tyrants. They have often committed
crimes to increase the liberty of mankind ; but the history
of the world will not show an instance where an Infidel or
an Atheist has assassinated any man in the interest of human
slavery. Of course, I am exceedingly glad that Guiteau

INTERVIEWS. IO3

is not an Infidel. I am glad that he believes the Bible,
glad that he has delivered lectures against what he calls
Infidelity, and glad that he has been working for years with
the missionaries and evangelists of the United States. He
is a man of small brain, badly balanced. He believes the
Bible to be the word of God. He believes in the reality of
heaven and hell. He believes in the miraculous. He is
surrounded by the supernatural, and when a man throws
away his reason, of course no one can tell what he will do.
He is liable to become a devotee or an assassin, a saint or a
murderer ; he may die in a monastery or in a penitentiary.

Question. According to your view, then, the species of
fanaticism taught in sectarian Christianity, by which Gui-
teau was led to assert that Garfield dead would be better
off than living — being in Paradise — is more responsible
than office seeking or political factionalism for his deed?

Answer. Guiteau seemed to think that the killing of the
President would only open the gates of Paradise to him, and
that, after all, under such circumstances, murder was hardly
a crime. This same kind of reasoning is resorted to in the
pulpit to account for death. If Guiteau had succeeded in
killing the President, hundreds of ministers would have
said, " After all, it may be that the President has lost noth
ing ; it may be that our loss is his eternal gain ; and although
it seems to us cruel that Providence should allow a man like
him to be murdered, still, it may have been the very kindest
thing that could have been done for him." Guiteau
reasoned in this way, and probably convinced himself, judg
ing from his own life, that this world was, after all, of very
little worth. We are apt to measure others by ourselves.
Of course, I do not think that Christianity is responsible for
this crime. Superstition may have been, in part — probably
was. But no man believes in Christianity because he thinks
it sanctions murder. At the same time, an absolute belief
in the Bible sometimes produces the worst form of murder.

IO4 INTERVIEWS.

Take that of Mr. Freeman, of Pocasset, who stabbed his
little daughter to the heart in accordance with what he
believed to be the command of God. This poor man
imitated Abraham; and, for that matter, Jehovah himself.
There have been in the history of Christianity thousands
and thousands of such instances, and there will probably be
many thousands more that have been and will be produced
by throwing away our own reason and taking the word of
some one else — often a word that we do not understand.

Question. What is your opinion as to the effect of praying
for the recovery of the President, and have you any con
fidence that prayers are answered ?

Answer. My opinion as to the value of prayer is well
known. I take it that every one who prays for the Presi
dent shows at least his sympathy and good will. Person
ally, I have no objection to anybody's praying. Those
who think that prayers are answered should praj7. For
all who honestly believe this, and who honestly implore
their Deity to watch over, protect, and save the life of the
President, I have only the kindest feelings.

It may be that a few will pray to be seen of men ; but I
suppose that most people on a subject like this are honest.
Personally, I have not the slightest idea of the existence of
the supernatural. Prayer may affect the person who prays.
It may put him in such a frame of mind that he can better
bear disappointment than if he had not prayed ; but I can
not believe that there is any being who hears and answers
prayer.

When we remember the earthquakes that have devoured,
the pestilences that have covered the earth with corpses,
and all the crimes and agonies that have been inflicted
upon the good and weak by the bad and strong, it does not
seem possible that anything can be accomplished by prayer.
I do not wish to hurt the feelings of anyone, but I imagine
that I have a right to my own opinion. If the President

INTERVIEWS. IO5

gets well it will be because the bullet did not strike an ab
solutely vital part ; it will be because he has been well
cared for ; because he has had about him intelligent and
skillful physicians, men who understood their profession.
No doubt he has received great support from the universal
expression of sympathy and kindness. The knowledge
that fifty millions of people are his friends has given him
nerve and hope. Some of the ministers, I see, think that
God was actually present and deflected the ball. Another
minister tells us that the President would have been
assassinated in a church, but that God determined not to
allow so frightful a crime to be committed in so sacred an
edifice. All this sounds to me like perfect absurdity —
simple noise. Yet, I presume that those who talk in this
way are good people and believe what they say. Of
course, they can give no reason why God did not deflect
the ball when Lincoln was assassinated. The truth is, the
pulpit first endeavors to find out the facts, and then to
make a theory to fit them. Whoever believes in a special
providence must, of necessity, be illogical and absurd ;
because it is impossible to make any theological theory
that some facts will not contradict.

Question, Won't you give us, then, Colonel, your analysis
of this act, and the motives leading to it ?

Answer. I think Guiteau wanted an office and was
refused. He became importunate. He was, substantially,
put out of the White House. He became malicious. He
made up his mind to be revenged. This, in my judgment,
is the diagnosis of his case. Since he has been in jail he
has never said one word about having been put out of the
White House; he is lawyer enough to know he must not
furnish any ground for malice. He is a miserable, mali
cious and worthless wretch, infinitely egotistical, imagines
that he did a great deal toward the election of Garfield, and
upon being refused the house a serpent of malice coiled

IO6 INTERVIEWS.

in his heart, and he determined to be revenged. That is
all!

Question. Do you, in any way, see any reason or founda
tion for the severe and bitter criticisms made against the
Stalwart leaders in connection with this crime. As you
are well known to be a friend of the administration, while
not unfriendly to Mr. Conkling and those acting with him,
would you mind giving the public your opinion on this
point ?

Answer. Of course, I do not hold Arthur, Conkling and
Platt responsible for Guiteau's action. In the first excite
ment a thousand unreasonable things were said ; and when
passion has possession of the brain, suspicion is a welcome
visitor.

I do not think that any friend of the administration
really believes Conkling, Platt and Arthur responsible in
the slightest degree. Conkling wished to prevent the ap
pointment of Robertson. The President stood by his
friend. One thing brought on another, Mr. Conkling
petulantly resigned, and made the mistake of his life.
There was a good deal of feeling, but, of course, no one
dreamed that the wretch, Guiteau, was lying in wait for the
President's life. In the first place, Guiteau was on the
President's side, and was bitterly opposed to Conkling.
Guiteau did what he did from malice and personal spite.
I think the sermon preached last Sunday in the Campbel-
lite Church was unwise, ill advised, and calculated to make
enemies instead of friends. Mr. Conkling has been beaten.
He has paid for the mistake he made. If he can stand it, I
can; and why should there be any malice on the subject?
Exceedingly good men have made mistakes, and afterward
corrected them.

Question Is it not true, Colonel Ingersoll, that the lesson
of this deed is to point the real and overwhelming need of
re-knitting and harmonizing the factious ?

INTERVIEWS. 107

Answer. There is hardly faction enough left for "knit
ting." The party is in harmony now. All that is necessary
is to stop talking. The people of this country care very
little as to who holds any particular office. They wish to
have the Government administered in accordance with cer
tain great principles, and they leave the fields, the shops,
and the stores once in four years, for the purpose of attend
ing to that business. In the meantime, politicians quarrel
about offices. The people go on. They plow fields, they
build homes, they open mines, they enrich the world, they
cover our country with prosperity, and enjoy the aforesaid
quarrels. But when the time comes, these gentlemen are
forgotten.

Principles take the place of politicians, and the people

Settle these questions for themselves. — Sunday Gazette, Washing
ton, D. C., July 24, 1881.

DISTRICT SUFFRAGE.

Question. You have heretofore incidentally expressed
yourself on the matter of local suffrage in the District of
Columbia. Have you any objections to giving your present
views of the question ?

Answer. I am still in favor of suffrage in the District.
The real trouble is, that before any substantial relief can
be reached, there must be a change in the Constitution of
the United States. The mere right to elect aldermen and
mayors and policemen is of no great importance. It is a
mistake to take all political power from the citizens of the
District. Americans want to help rule the country. The
District ought to have at least one Representative in Con
gress, and should elect one presidential elector. The peo
ple here should have a voice. They should feel that they
are a part of this country. They should have the right to
sue in all Federal courts, precisely as though they were
citizens of a State. This city ought to have half a mill-

108 INTERVIEWS.

ion of inhabitants. Thousands would come here every
year from every part of the Union, were it not for the fact
that they do not wish to become political nothings. They
think that citizenship is worth something, and they preserve
it by staying away from Washington. This city is a " flag
of truce " where wounded and dead politicians congregate ;
the Mecca of failures, the perdition of claimants, the
purgatory of seekers after place, and the heaven only of
those who neither want nor do anything. Nothing is manu
factured, no solid business is done in this city, and there
never will be until energetic, thrifty people wish to make it
their home, and they will not wish that until the people of
the District have something like the rights and political
prospects of other citizens. It is hard to see why the right
to representation should be taken from citizens living at
the Capital of the Nation. The believers in free govern
ment should believe in a free capital.

Question. Are there any valid reasons why the constitu
tional limitations to the elective franchise in the District
of Columbia should not be removed by an amendment to
that instrument ?

Answer. I cannot imagine one. If our Government is
founded upon a correct principle there can be no objection
urged against suffrage in the District that cannot, with
equal force, be urged against every part of the country. If
freedom is dangerous here, it is safe nowhere. If a man
cannot be trusted in the District, he is dangerous in the
State. We do not trust the place where the man happens
to be ; we trust the man. The people of this District can
not remain in their present condition without becoming dis
honored. The idea of allowing themselves to be governed
by commissioners, in whose selection they have no part, is
monstrous. The people here beg, implore, request, ask,
pray, beseech, intercede, crave, urge, entreat, supplicate,
memorialize and most humbly petition, but they neither

INTERVIEWS. 109

vote nor demand. They are not allowed to enter the Temple
of Liberty ; they stay in the lobby or sit on the steps.

Question. They say Paris is France, because her electors
or citizens control that municipality. Do you foresee any
danger of centralization in the full enfranchisement of the
citizens of Washington ?

Answer. There was a time when the intelligence of France
was in Paris. The country was besotted, ignorant, Cath
olic ; Paris was alive, educated, Infidel, full of new theories,
of passion and heroism. For two hundred years Paris was
an athlete chained to a corpse. The corpse was the rest
of France. It is different now, and the whole country is at
last filling with light. Besides, Paris has two millions of
people. It is filled with factories. It is not only the intel
lectual center, but the center of money and business as
well. Let the Corps Legislatif meet anywhere, and Paris
will continue to be in a certain splendid sense — France.
Nothing like that can ever happen here unless you expect
Washington to outstrip New York, Philadelphia and
Chicago. If allowing the people of the District of Colum
bia to vote was the only danger to the Republic, I should
be politically the happiest of men. I think it somewhat
dangerous to deprive even one American citizen of the
right to govern himself.

Question. Would you have Government clerks and of
ficials appointed to office here given the franchise in the
District? and should this, if given, include the women
clerks ?

Answer. Citizenship should be determined here as in
the States. Clerks should not be allowed to vote unless their
intention is to make the District their home. When I make
a government I shall give one vote to each family. The
unmarried should not be represented except by parents.
Let the family be the unit of representation. Give each
hearthstone a vote.

IIO INTERVIEWS.

Question. How do you regard the opposition of the local
clergy and of the Bourbon Democracy to enfranchising the
citizens of the District ?

Answer. I did not know that the clergy did oppose it. If,
as you say, they do oppose it because they fear it will ex
tend the liquor traffic, I think their reason exceedingly
stupid. You cannot make men temperate by shutting up
a few of the saloons and leaving others wide open. In
temperance must be met with other weapons. The church
ought not to appeal to force. What would the clergy of
Washington think should the miracle of Cana be repeated
in their day ? Had they been in that country, with their
present ideas, what would they have said ? After all there
is a great deal of philosophy in the following : " Better have
the whole world voluntarily drunk then sober on compul
sion." Of course the Bourbons object. Objecting is the
business of a Bourbon. He always objects. If he does not
understand the question he objects because he does not, and
if he does understand he objects because he does. With him
the reason for objecting is the fact that he does.

Question. What effect, if any, would the complete fran
chise to our citizens have upon real estate and business in
Washington ?

Answer. If the people here had representation according
to numbers — if the avenues to political preferment were
open — if men here could take part in the real government
of the country, if they could bring with them all their
rights, this would be a great and splendid Capital. We
ought to have here a University, the best in the world, a
library second to none, and here should be gathered the
treasures of American art. The Federal Government has
been infinitely economical in the direction of information.
I hope the time will come when our Government will give
as much to educate two men as to kill one. — The Capital, Wash
ington, D. C., December 18, 1881.

FUNERAL OF JOHN G. MILLS AND IMMORTALITY.*

Question. Have you seen the recent clerical strictures
upon your doctrines ?

Answer. There are always people kind enough to send
me anything they have the slightest reason to think I do
not care to read. They seem to be animated by a mission
ary spirit, and apparently want to be be in a position when
they see me in hell to exclaim : " You can't blame me. I
sent you all the impudent articles I saw, and if you died
unconverted it was no fault of mine."

Question. Did you notice that a Washington clergyman
said that the very fact that you were allowed to speak at
the funeral was in itself a sacrilege, and that you ought to
have been stopped.

Answer. Yes, I saw some such story. Of course, the
clergy regard marriages and funerals as the perquisites of
the pulpit, and they resent any interference on the part of
the pews. They look at these matters from a business
point of view. They made the same cry against civil
marriages. They denied that marriage was a contract, and
insisted that it was a sacrament, and that it was hardly
binding unless a priest had blessed it. They used to bury
in consecrated ground, and had marks upon the graves, so
that Gabriel might know the ones to waken. The clergy
wish to make themselves essential. They must christen
the babe — this gives them possession of the cradle. They
must perform the ceremony of marriage — this gives them
possession of the family. They must pronounce the
funeral discourse — this gives them possession of the dead.

* Robert G. Ingersoll rarely takes the trouble to answer critics. His recent ad
dress over the dead body of hi^ friend John G. Miils lias culled forth \\ storm of de
nunciation from nearly every pulpit in the country. The v.r'ter called at the
Colonel's office in New York Avenni yesterday and asked him tu reply to some of
the points made against him. Reluctantly he assented. (Ill)

112 INTERVIEWS.

Formerly they denied baptism to the children of the un
believer, marriage to him who denied the dogmas of the
church, and burial to honest men. The church wishes to
control the world, and wishes to sacrifice this world for the
next. Of course I am in favor of the utmost liberty upon
all these questions. When a Presbyterian dies, let a fol
lower of John Calvin console the living by setting forth
the " Five Points." When a Catholic becomes clay, let a
priest perform such ceremonies as his creed demands, and
let him picture the delights of purgatory for the gratifica
tion of the living. And when one dies who does not believe
in any religion, having expressed a wish that somebody
say a few words above his remains, I see no reason why
such a proceeding should be stopped, and, for my part, I
see no sacrilege in it. Why should the reputations of the
dead, and the feelings of those who live, be placed at the
mercy of the ministers ? A man dies not having been a
Christian, and who, according to the Christian doctrine, is
doomed to eternal fire. How would an honest Christian
minister console the widow and the fatherless children?
How would he dare to tell what he claims to be truth in the
presence of the living ? The truth is, the Christian minister
in the presence of death abandons his Christianity. He
dare not say above the coffin, " the soul that once inhab
ited this body is now in hell." He would be denounced as
a brutal savage. Now and then a minister at a funeral has
been brave enough and unmannerly enough to express his
doctrine in all its hideousness of hate. I was told that in
Chicago, many years ago, a young man, member of a
volunteer fire company, was killed by the falling of a wall,
and at the very moment the wall struck him he was utter
ing a curse. He was a brave and splendid man. An or
thodox minister said above his coffin, in the presence of
his mother and mourning friends, that he saw no hope for
the soul of that young man. The mother, who was also

INTERVIEWS. 113

orthodox, refused to have her boy buried with such a ser*
mon — stopped the funeral, took the corpse home, engaged
a Uuiversalist preacher, and, on the next day having heard
this man say that there was no place in the wide universe
of God without hope, and that her son would finally stand
among the redeemed, this mother laid her son away, put
flowers upon his grave, and was satisfied.

Question. What have you to say to the charge that you
are preaching the doctrine of despair and hopelessness,
when they have the comforting assurances of the Christian
religion to offer ?

Answer. All I have to say is this : If the Christian relig
ion is true, as commonly preached — and when I speak of
Christianity, I speak of the orthodox Christianity of the
day — if that be true , those whom I have loved the best are
now in torment. Those to whom I am most deeply in
debted are now suffering the vengeance of God. If this
religion be true, the future is of no value to me. I care
nothing about heaven, unless the ones I love and have
loved are there. I know nothing about the angels. I
might not like them, and they might not like me. I would
rather meet there the ones who have loved me here — the
ones who would have died for me, and for whom I would
have died ; and if we are to be eternally divided — not be
cause we differed in our views of justice, not because we
differed about friendship or love or candor, or the nobility
of human action, but because we differed in belief about
the atonement or baptism or the inspiration of the Scrip
tures — and if some of us are to be in heaven, and some in
hell, then, for my part, I prefer eternal sleep. To me the
doctrine of annihilation is infinitely more consoling, than
the probable separation preached by the orthodox clergy
of our time. Of course, even if there be a God, I like per
sons that I know, better than I can like him — we have
more in common — I know more about them ; and how is

114 INTERVIEWS.

it possible for me to love the infinite and unknown better
than the ones I know ? Why not have the courage to say
that if there be a God, all I know about him I know by
knowing myself and my friends — by knowing others ? And,
after all, is not a noble man, is not a pure woman, the finest
revelation we have of God — if there be one ? Of what use
is it to be false to ourselves ? What moral quality is there
in theological pretence ? Why should a man say that he
loves God better than he does his wife or his children or
his brother or his sister or his warm, true friend ? Several
ministers have objected to what I said about my friend Mr.
Mills, on the ground that it was not calculated to console
the living. Mr. Mills was not a Christian. He denied the
inspiration of the Scriptures. He believed that restitution
was the best repentance, and that, after all, sin is a mis
take. He was not a believer in total depravity, or in the
atonement. He denied these things. He was an unbe
liever. Now, let me ask, what consolation could a Chris
tian minister have given to his family? He could have
said to the widow and the orphans, to the brother and
sister : " Your husband, your father, your brother, is now in
hell ; dry your tears ; weep not for him, but try and save
yourselves. He has been damned as a warning to you ;
care no more for him, why should you weep over the
grave of a man whom God thinks fit only to be eternally
tormented ? Why should you love the memory of one whom
God hates?" The minister could have said: "He had an
opportunity — he did not take it. The life-boat was lowered
— he would not get in it — he has been drowned, and the
waves of God's wrath will sweep over him forever." This
is the consolation of Christianity and the only honest con
solation that Christianity can have for the widow and
orphans of an unbeliever. Suppose, however, that the
Christian minister has too tender a heart to tell what he
believes to be the truth — then he can say to the sorrowing

INTERVIEWS. 115

friends : " Perhaps the man repented before he died ; per
haps he is not in hell, perhaps you may meet him in
heaven ; " and this " perhaps " is a consolation not growing
out of Christianity, but out of the politeness of the preacher
— out of paganism.

Question. Do you not think that the Bible has consola
tion for those who have lost their friends ?

Answer. There is about the Old Testament this strange
fact — I find in it no burial service. There is in it, I
believe, from the first mistake in Genesis to the last curse
in Malachi, not one word said over the dead as to their
place and state. When Abraham died, nobody said:" He is
still alive — he is in another world." When the prophets
passed away, not one word was said as to the heaven to
which they had gone. In the Old Testament, Saul in
quired of the witch, and Samuel rose. Samuel did not pre
tend that he had been living, or that he was alive, but
asked : " Why hast thou disquieted me ? " He did not
pretend to have come from some other world. And when
David speaks of his son, saying that he could not come
back to him, but that he, David, could go to his son, that
is but saying that he, too, must die. There is not in the
Old Testament one hope of immortality. It is expressly as
serted that there is no difference between the man and
beast — that as the one dieth so dieth the other. There is
one little passage in Job which commentators have en
deavored to twist into a hope of immortality. Here is a
book of hundreds and hundreds of pages, and hundreds
and hundreds of chapters — a revelation from God — and in
it one little passage, which, by a mistranslation, is tortured
into saying something about another life. And this is the
Old Testament. I have sometimes thought that the Jews,
when slaves in Egypt, were mostly occupied in building
tombs for mummies, and that they became so utterly dis
gusted with that kind of work, that the moment they

H 6 INTERVIEWS.

founded a nation for themselves they went out of the tomb
business. The Egyptians were believers in immortality,
and spent almost their entire substance upon the dead.
The living were impoverished to enrich the dead. The
grave absorbed the wealth of Egypt. The industry of a
nation was buried. Certainly the Old Testament has
nothing clearly in favor of immortality. In the New
Testament we are told about the " kingdom of heaven," —
that it is at hand — and about who shall be worthy, but it
is hard to tell what is meant by the kingdom of heaven.
The kingdom of heaven was apparently to be in this
world, and it was about to commence. The Devil was to be
chained for a thousand years, the wicked were to be burned
up, and Christ and his followers were to enjoy the earth.
This certainly was the doctrine of Paul when he says :
" Behold, I shew you a mystery ; We shall not all sleep,
but we shall all be changed. In a moment, in the twinkling
of an eye, at the last trump ; for the trumpet shall sound,
and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be
changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortal must put on immortality." According to
this doctrine, those who were alive were to be changed,
and those who had died were to be raised from the dead.
Paul certainly did not refer to any other world beyond
this. All these things were to happen here. The New
Testament is made up of the fragments of many religions.
It is utterly inconsistent with itself; and there is not a
particle of evidence of the resurrection and ascension of
Christ — neither in the nature of things could there be. It
is a thousand times more probable that people were mis
taken than that such things occurred. If Christ really rose
from the dead, he should have shown himself, not simply
to his disciples, but to the very men who crucified him — to
Herod, to the high priest, to Pilate. He should have made
a triumphal entry into Jerusalem after his resurrection , in-

INTERVIEWS. 117

stead of before. He should have shown himself to the
Sadducees, — to those who denied the existence of spirit.
Take from the New Testament its doctrine of eternal pain
— the idea that we can please God by acts of self-denial
that can do no good to others — take away all its miracles,
and I have no objection to all the good things in it — no
objection to the hope of a future life, if such a hope is
expressed — not the slightest. And I would not for the
world say anything to take from any mind a hope in which
dwells the least comfort; but a doctrine that dooms a large
majority of mankind to eternal flames ought not to be
called a consolation. What I say is, that the writers of the
New Testament knew no more about the future state than
I do, and no less. The horizon of life has never been
pierced. The veil between time and what is called eternity,
has never been raised, so far as I know; and I say of the
dead what all others must say if they say only what they
know. There is no particular consolation in a guess. Not
knowing what the future has in store for the human race,
it is far better to prophesy good than evil. It is better to
hope that the night has a dawn, that the sky has a star,
than to build a heaven for the few, and a hell for the
many. It is better to leave your dead in doubt than in
fire — better that they should sleep in shadow than in the
lurid flames of perdition. And so I say, and always have
said, let us hope for the best. The minister asks:" What
right have you to hope? It is sacrilegious in you." But,
whether the clergy like it or not, I shall always express
my real opinion, and shall always be glad to say to those
who mourn : " There is in death, as I believe, nothing worse
than sleep. Hope for as much better as you can. Under
the seven-hued arch let the dead rest." Throw away the
Bible, and you throw away the fear of hell, but the hope of
another life remains, because the hope does not depend
upon a book — it depends upon the heart — upon human

Il8 INTERVIEWS.

affection. The fear, so far as this generation is concerned,
is born of the book, and that part of the book was born of
savagery. Whatever of hope is in the book is born, as I
said before,of human affection, and the higher our civiliza
tion the greater the affection. I had rather rest my hope
of something beyond the grave upon the human heart,
than upon what they call the Scriptures, because there I
find mingled with the hope of something good the threat of
infinite evil. Among the thistles, thorns and briers of the
Bible is one pale and sickly flower of hope. Among all its
wild beasts and fowls, only one bird flies heavenward. I
prefer the hope without the thorns, without the briers,
thistles, hyenas, and serpents.

Question. Do you not know that it is claimed that
immortality was brought to light in the New Testament,
that that, in fact, was the principal mission of Christ ?

Answer. I know that Christians claim that the doctrine
of immortality was first taught in the New Testament.
They also claim that the highest morality was found there.
Both these claims are utterly without foundation. Thou
sands of years before Christ was born — thousands of years
before Moses saw the light — the doctrine of immortality
was preached by the priests of Osiris and Isis. Funeral
discourses were pronounced over the dead, ages before
Abraham existed. When a man died in Egypt, before he
was taken across the sacred lake, he had a trial. Witnesses
appeared, and if he had done anything wrong, for which
he had not made restitution, he was not taken across the
lake. The living friends, in disgrace, carried the body
back, and it was buried outside of what might be called
consecrated ground, while the ghost was supposed to
wander for a hundred years. Often the children of the
dead would endeavor to redeem the poor ghost by acts of
love and kindness. When he came to the spirit world
there was the god Anubis, who weighed his heart in the

INTERVIEWS. 119

scales of eternal justice, and if the good deeds preponder
ated he entered the gates of Paradise ; if the evil, he had to
go back to the world and be born in the bodies of animals
for the purpose of final purification. At last, the good
deeds would outweigh the evil, and, according to the relig
ion of Egypt, the latch-string of heaven would never be
drawn in until the last wanderer got home. Immortality
was also taught in India, and, in fact, in all the countries
of antiquity. Wherever men have loved, wherever they
have dreamed, wherever hope has spread its wings, the
idea of immortality has existed. But nothing could be
worse than the immortality promised in the New Testa
ment — admitting that it is so promised — eternal joy side
by side with eternal pain. Think of living forever, know
ing that countless millions are suffering infinite pain ! How
much better it would be for God to commit suicide and
let all life and motion cease ! Christianity has no consola
tion except for the Christian, and if a Christian minister
endeavors to console the widow of an unbeliever he must
resort, not to his religion, but to his sympathy — to the
natural promptings of the heart. He is compelled to say :
" After all, may be God is not so bad as we think," or,
"May be your husband was better than he appeared;
perhaps somehow, in some way, the dear man has squeezed
in ; he was a good husband, he was a kind father, and even
if he is in hell, may be he is in the temperate zone, where
they have occasional showers, and, where, if the days are
hot, the nights are reasonably cool." All I ask of Chris
tian ministers is to tell what they believe to be the truth —
not to borrow ideas from the pagans — not to preach the
mercy born of unregenerite sympathy. Let them tell their
real doctrines. If th'.y will do that, they will not have
much influence. If orthodox Christianity is true, a large
majority of the men who have made this world fit to live
in are now in perdition. A majority of the Revolutionary

I2O INTERVIEWS.

soldiers have been damned. A majority of the men who
fought for the integrity of this Union — a majority who
were starved at Libby and Andersonville — are now in hell.

Question. Do you deny the immortality of the soul ?

Answer. I never have denied the immortality of the soul.
I have simply been honest. I have said : " I do not know."
Long ago, in my lecture on " The Ghosts," I used the fol
lowing language : " The idea of immortality, that like a sea
has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, with its count
less waves of hope and fear beating against the shores and
rocks of time and fate, was not born of any book, nor of
any creed, nor of any religion. It was born of human
affection, and it will continue to ebb and flow beneath the
mists and clouds of doubt and darkness as long as love
kisses the lips of death. It is the rainbow Hope, shining

Upon the tears Of grief." — The Post, Washington, D. C., April 30, 1883.

STAR ROUTE AND POLITICS.*

No, I do not believe there will be any more Star Route
trials. There is so much talk about the last one, there will
not be time for another.

Question. Did you anticipate a verdict ?

Answer. I did anticipate a verdict, and one of acquittal.
I knew that the defendants were entitled to such a verdict.
I knew that the Government had signally failed to prove a
case. There was nothing but suspicion, from which malice
was inferred. The direct proof was utterly unworthy of
belief. The direct witness was caught with letters he had
forged. This one fact was enough to cover the prosecution

•Col. Ingersoll entertains very pronounced Ideas concerning President Arthur,
Attorney-General Brewster and divers other people, which will be found presented
herewith in characteristically piquant style. With his family, the eloquent advocate
has a cottage here, and finds brain and body rest and refreshment in the tumbling
waves. This noon, in the height of a tremendous thunder storm. I bumped against
his burly figure in the roaring crest, and, after the first shock had passed, deter
mined to utilize the providential coincidence. The water was warm, our clothes
were in the bathing houses, and comfort was more certain where we were than any
where else. The Colonel is an expert swimmer anrl as a floater cannot be beaten.
He was floating when we bumped. Spouting a pintof salt water from his mouth,
he nearly choked with laughter as,in answer to my question he said :

INTERVIEWS. 121

with confusion. The fact that Rerdell sat with the other
defendants and reported to the Government from day to
day satisfied the jury as to the value of his testimony, and
the animus of the Department of Justice. Besides, Rerdell
had offered to challenge such jurors as the Government
might select. He handed counsel for defendants a list of
four names that he wanted challenged. At that time it was
supposed that each defendant would be allowed to chal
lenge four jurors. Afterward the Court decided that all the
defendants must be considered as one party and had the
right to challenge four and no more. Of the four names on
Rerdell's list the Government challenged three and Rerdell
tried to challenge the other. This was what is called a co
incidence. Another thing had great influence with the
jury — the evidence of the defendants was upon all material
points so candid and so natural, so devoid of all coloring,
that the jury could not help believing. If the people knew
the evidence they would agree with the jury. When we
remember that there were over ten thousand star routes, it
is not to be wondered at that some mistakes were made —
that in some instances too much was paid and in others too
little.

Question. What has been the attitude of President Arthur ?

Answer. We asked nothing from the President. We
wanted no help from him. We expected that he would
take no part — that he would simply allow the matter to be
settled by the court in the usual way. I think that he
made one very serious mistake. He removed officers on
false charges without giving them a hearing. He deposed
Marshal Henry because somebody said that he was the
friend of the defendants. Henry was a good officer and an
honest man. The President removed Ainger for the same
reason. This was a mistake. Ainger should have been
heard. There is always time to do justice. No day is too
short for justice, and eternity is not long enough to commit

122 INTERVIEWS.

a wrong. It was thought that the community could be
terrorized : —

First. The President dismissed Henry and Ainger.

Second. The Attorney-General wrote a letter denouncing
the defendants as thieves and robbers.

Third. Other letters from Bliss and MacVeagh were
published.

Fourth. Dixon,the foreman of the first jury, was indicted.

Fifth. Members of the first jury voting " guilty " were in
various ways rewarded.

Sixth. Bargains were made with Boone and Rerdell.
The cases against Boone were to be dismissed and Rerdell
was promised immunity. Under these circumstances the
second trial commenced. But of all people in this country
the citizens of Washington care least for Presidents and
members of the Cabinets. They know what these officers
are made of. They know that they are simply folks — that
they do not hold office forever — that the Jupiters of to-day
are often the pigmies of to-morrow. They have seen too
many people come in with trumpets and flags and go out
with hisses and rags to be overawed by the deities of a day.
They have seen Lincoln and they are not to be frightened
by his successors. Arthur took part to the extent of
turning out men suspected of being friendly to the defence.
Arthur was in a difficult place. He was understood to be
the friend of Dorsey and, of course, had to do something.
Nothing is more dangerous than a friend in power. He is
obliged to show that he is impartial, and it always takes a
good deal of injustice to establish a reputation for fairness.

Question. Was there any ground to expect aid or any dif
ferent action on Arthur's part ?

Answer. All we expected was that Arthur would do as
the soldier wanted the Lord to do at New Orleans — "Just
take neither side."

Qwstion. Why did not Brewster speak ?

INTERVIEWS. 123

Answer. The Court would not allow two closings. The
Attorney-General did not care to speak in the " middle."
He wished to close, and as he could not do that without
putting Mr. Merrick out, he concluded to remain silent.
The defendants had no objection to his speaking, but they
objected to two closing arguments for the Government, and
the Court decided that they were right. Of course, I un
derstand nothing about the way in which the attorneys for
the prosecution arranged their difficulties. That was
nothing to me ; neither do I care what money they received
— all that is for the next Congress. It is not for me to
speak of those questions.

Question. Will there be other trials ?

Answer. I think not. It does not seein likely that other
attorneys will want to try, and the old ones have. My
opinion is that we have had the last of the Star Route trials.
It was claimed that the one tried Was the strongest. If this
is so the rest had better be dismissed. I think the people
are tired of the whole business. It now seems probable
that all the time for the next few years will be taken up in
telling about the case that was tried. I see that Cook is
telling about MacVeagh and James and Brewster and Bliss ;
Walsh is giving his opinion of Kellogg and Foster ; Bliss is
saying a few words about Cook and Gibson ; Brewster is
telling what Bliss told him ; Gibson will have his say about
Garfield and MacVeagh, and it now seems probable that we
shall get the bottom facts about the other jury — the actions
of Messrs. Hoover, Bowen, Brewster Cameron and others.
Personally I have no interest in the business.

Question. How does the next campaign look ?

Answer. The Republicans are making all the mistakes
they can, and the only question now is, Can the Democrats
make more ? The tariff will be one of the great questions,
and may be the only one except success. The Democrats
are on both sides of this question. They hate to give

124 INTERVIEWS.

up the word "only." Only for that word they might
have succeeded in 1880. If they can only let "only" alone,
and say they want " a tariff for revenue " they will do better.
The fact is the people are not in favor of free trade, neither
do they want a tariff high enough to crush a class, but they
do want a tariff to raise a revenue and to protect our in
dustries. I am for protection because it diversifies indus
tries and develops brain — allows us to utilize all the muscle
and brain we have. A party attacking the manufacturing
interests of this country will fail. There are too many
millions of dollars invested and to many millions of people
interested. The country is becoming alike interested on
this question. We are no longer divided, as in slavery
times, into manufacturing and agricultural districts or
sections. Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana and
Texas have manufacturing interests. And the Western
States believe in the protection of their industries. The
American people have a genius for manufacturing, a genius
for invention. We are not the greatest painters or sculptors
or scientists, but we are without doubt the greatest in
ventors. If we were all engaged in one business we would
become stupid. Agricultural countries produce great wealth,
but are never rich. To get rich it is necessary to mix
thought with labor. To raise the raw material is a question
of strength ; to manufacture, to put it in useful and beauti
ful forms, is a question of mind. There is avast difference
between the value of, say, a milestone and a statue, and
yet the labor expended in getting the raw material is about
the same. The point, after all, is this : first, we must have
revenue ; second, shall we get this by direct taxation or
shall we tax imports and at the same time protect American
labor ? The party that advocates reasonable protection
will succeed.*

* At this point, with far away peals of thunder, the storm ceased, the sun reap
peared and a vault of heavenly bine swung overhead. "Let us get out, " said
Colonel Ingersoll. Suiting the action to the word, the Colonel struck out lustily
for the beach, on which,hard as a rock and firm as flint, he soon planted his sturdy

INTERVIEWS. 125

Question. In view of all this, where do you think the
presidential candidate will come from ?

Answer, From the West.

Question. Why so ?

Answer. The South and East must compromise. Both
can trust the West. The West represents the whole
country. There is no provincialism in the West. The
West is not old enough to have the prejudice of section ; it
is too prosperous to have hatred, too great to feel envy.

Question. You do not seem to think that Arthur has a
chance ?

Answer. No Vice- President was ever made President by
the people. It is natural to resent the accident that gave
the Vice-President the place. They regard the Vice-Presi-
dent as children do a stepmother. He is looked upon as
temporary — a device to save the election — a something to
stop a gap — a lighter — a political raft. He holds the horse
until another rider is found. People do not wish death to
suggest nominees for the presidency. I do not believe it
will be possible for Mr. Arthur, no matter how well he acts,
to overcome this feeling. The people like a new man.
There is some excitement in the campaign, and besides they
can have the luxury of believing that the new man is a
great man.

Question. Do you not think Arthur has grown and is a
greater man than when he was elected?

Answer. Arthur was placed in very trying circumstances,
and, I think, behaved with great discretion. But he was
Vice-President, and that is a vice that people will not
pardon.

form. And as he lumbered across the sand to the side door of his comfortable cot
tage, some three hundred feet from the surf, the necessarily suggested contrast be
tween Ingersoll in court and Ingersoll in soaked flannels was illustrated with forcible
comicality. Half an hour later he was found in the cozy library puffin? a high
flavored Havana, and listening to home-mile music of delicious quality. Ingersoll
at home is pleasant to contemplate. His sense of personal freedom is there aptly
pictured. Loving wife and affectionate daughters form, with happy-faced and genial-
hearted father,a model circle into which friends deem it a privilege to enter and a
pleasure to remain.
Continuing the conversation.

126 INTERVIEWS.

Question. How do you regard the situation in Ohio?

Answer. I hear that the Republicans are attacking
Hoadly, saying that he is an Infidel. I know nothing
about Mr. Hoadly's theological sentiments, but he certainly
has the right to have and express his own views. If the
Republicans of Ohio have made up their minds to disfran
chise the Liberals, the sooner they are beaten the better.
Why should the Republican party be so particular about
religious belief? Was Lincoln an orthodox Christian?
Were the founders of the party — the men who gave it heart
and brain — conspicuous for piety ? Were the abolitionists
all believers in the inspiration of the Bible? Is Judge
Hoadly to be attacked because he exercises the liberty that
he gives to others. Has not the Republican party trouble
enough with the spirituous to let the spiritual alone? If
the religious issue is made, I hope that the party making it
will be defeated. I know nothing about the effect of the
recent decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio. It is a very
curious decision and seems to avoid the Constitution with
neatness and despatch. The decision seems to rest on the
difference between the words tax and license — i e., between
allowing a man to sell whiskey for a tax of one hundred
dollars or giving him a license to sell whiskey and charging
him one hundred dollars. In this, the difference is in the
law instead of the money. So far all the prohibitory legis
lation on the liquor question has been a failure. Beer is
victorious, and Gambrinus now has Olympus all to himself.
On his side is the "bail"

Question. But who will win ?

Answer. The present indications are favorable to Judge
Hoadly. It is an off year. The Ohio leaders on one side
are not in perfect harmony. The Germans are afraid, and
they generally vote the Democratic ticket when in doubt. The
effort to enforce the Sunday law, to close the gardens, to

INTERVIEWS. 127

make one day in the week desolate and doleful, will give
the Republicans a great deal of hard work.

Question. How about Illinois?

Answer. Republican always. The Supreme Court of
Illinois has just made a good decision. That Court decided
that a contract made on Sunday can be enforced. In other
words, that Sunday is not holy enough to sanctify fraud.
You can rely on a State with a Court like that. There is
very little rivalry in Illinois. I think that General Oglesby
will be the next Governor. He is one of the best men in
that State or any other.

Question. What about Indiana?

Answer. In that State I think General Gresham is the
coming man. He was a brave soldier, an able, honest
judge, and he will fill with honor any position he may be
placed in. He is an excellent lawyer, and has as much will
as was ever put in one man. McDonald is the most available
man for the Democrats. He is safe and in every respect
reliable. He is without doubt the most popular man in his
party.

Question. Well, Colonel, what are you up to ?

Answer. Nothing. I am surrounded by sand, sea and
sky. I listen to music, bathe in the surf and enjoy myself.
I am wondering why people take interest in politics ; why
anybody cares about anything; why everybody is not con
tented; why people want to climb the greased pole of office
and then dodge the brickbats of enemies and rivals ; why
any man wishes to be President, or a member of Congress,
or in the Cabinet, or do anything except to live with the
ones he loves, and enjoy twenty-four hours every day. I
wonder why all New York does not come to Long Beach
and hear Schreiner's Band play the music of Wagner, the
greatest of all composers. Finally, in the language of Walt
Whitman, " I loaf and invite my soul." — The Herald, New York,

July 1, 1883.

THE INTERVIEWER.

Question. What do you think of newspaper interviewing ?

Answer. I believe that James Redpath claims to have in
vented the " interview." This system opens all doors, does
away with political pretence, batters down the fortifications
of dignity and official importance, pulls masks from solemn
faces, compels everybody to show his hand. The interviewer
seems to be omnipresent. He is the next man after the ac
cident. If a man should be blown up he would likely fall
on an interviewer. He is the universal interrogation point.
He asks questions for a living. If the interviewer is fair
and honest he is useful, if the other way, he is still interest
ing. On the whole, I regard the interviewer as an exceed
ingly important person. But whether he is good or bad,
he has come to stay. He will interview us until we die,
and then ask the " friends" a few questions just to round the
subject off.

Question. What do you think the tendency of newspapers
is at present ?

Answer. The papers of the future, I think, will be "news "
papers. The editorial is getting shorter and shorter. The
paragraphist is taking the place of the heavy man. People
rather form their own opinions from the facts. Of course
good articles will always find readers, but the dreary, dole
ful, philosophical dissertation has had its day. The maga
zines will fall heir to such articles ; then religious weeklies
will take them up, and then they will cease altogether.

Question. Do you think the people lead the newspapers,
or do the newspapers lead them ?

Answer. The papers lead and are led. Most papers have
for sale what people want to buy. As a rule the people who
buy determine the character of the thing sold. The reading

(128)

INTERVIEWS. 129

public grow more discriminating every year, and, as a result,
are less and less " led." Violent papers — those that most
freely attack private character — are becoming less hurtful,
because they are losing their own reputations. Evil tends to
correct itself. People do not believe all they read, and there
is a growing tendency to wait and hear from the other side.

Question. Do newspapers to-day exercise as much influ
ence as they did twenty-five years ago ?

Answer. More, by the facts published, and less, by edi
torials. As we become civilized we are governed less by
persons and more by principles — less by faith and more by
fact. The best of all leaders is the man who teaches people
to lead themselves.

Question. What would you define public opinion to be ?

Answer. First, in the widest sense, the opinion of the
majority, including all kinds of people. Second, in a nar
rower sense, the opinion of the majority of the intellectual.
Third, in actual practice, the opinion of those who make the
most noise. Fourth, public opinion is generally a mistake,
which history records and posterity repeats.

Question. What do you regard as the result of your lectures ?

Answer. In the last fifteen years I have delivered several
hundred lectures. The world is growing more and more
liberal every day. The man who is now considered ortho
dox, a few years ago would have been denounced as an In
fidel. People are thinking more and believing less. The
pulpit is losing influence. In the light of modern discovery
the creeds are growing laughable. A theologian is an intel
lectual mummy, and excites attention only as a curiosity.
Supernatural religion has outlived its usefulness. The
miracles and wonders of the ancients will soon occupy the
same tent. Jonah and Jack the Giant Killer, Joshua and
Red Riding Hood, Noah and Neptune, will all go into the
collection ot the famous Mother Hubbard.

New York, July 8, 1883,

POLITICS AND PROHIBITION.

Question. What do you think of the result in Ohio?

Answer. In Ohio prohibition did more harm to Repub
lican chances than anything else. The Germans hold the
Republicans responsible. The German people believe in
personal liberty. They came to America to get it, and they
regard any interference in the manner or quantity of their
food and drink as an invasion of personal rights. They
claim they are not questions to be regulated by law, and I
agree with them. I believe that people will finally learn to
use spirits temperately and without abuse, but teetotalism is
intemperance in itself, which breeds resistance, and without
destroying the rivulet of the appetite only dams it and
makes it liable to break out at any moment. You can pre
vent a man from stealing by tying his hands behind him,
but you cannot make him honest. Prohibition breeds too
many spies and informers, and makes neighbors afraid of
each other. It kills hospitality. Again, the Republican
party in Ohio is endeavoring to have Sunday sanctified by
the Legislature. The working people want freedom on
Sunday. They wish to enjoy themselves, and all laws now
making to prevent innocent amusement, beget a spirit of
resentment among the common people. I feel like resent
ing all such laws, and unless the Republican party reforms
in that particular, it ought to be defeated. I regard those
two things as the principal causes of the Republican
party's defeat in Ohio.

Question. Do you believe that the Democratic success was
due to the possession of reverse principles?

Answer. I do not think that the Democratic party is in
favor of liberty of thought and action in these two regards,
from principle, but rather from policy. Finding the course

INTERVIEWS. IJI

pursued by the Republicans unpopular, they adopted the
opposite mode, and their success is a proof of the truth of
what I contend. One great trouble in the Republican party
is bigotry. The pulpit is always trying to take charge.
The same thing exists in the Democratic party to a less
degree. The great trouble here is that its worst element —
Catholicism — is endeavoring to get control.

Question. What causes operated for the Republican suc
cess in Iowa?

Answer. Iowa is a prohibition State and almost any law
on earth as against anything to drink, can be carried there.
There are no large cities in the State and it is much easier
to govern, but even there the prohibition law is bound to
be a failure. It will breed deceit and hypocrisy, and in the
long run the influence will be bad.

Question. Will these two considerations cut any figure in
the presidential campaign of 1884?

Answer. The party, as a party, will have nothing to do
with these questions. These matters are local. Whether
the Republicans are successful will depend more upon the
country's prosperity. If things should be generally in
pretty good shape in 1884, the people will allow the party
to remain in power. Changes of administration depend a
great deal on the feeling of the country. If crops are bad
and money is tight, the people blame the administration,
whether it is responsible or not. If a ship going down the
river strikes a snag, or encounters a storm, a cry goes up
against the captain. It may not have been his fault, but he
is blamed, all the same, and the passengers at once clamor
for another captain. So it is in politics.

If nothing interferes between this and 1884 the Repub
lican party will continue. Otherwise it will be otherwise.
But the principle of prosperity as applied to administrative
change is strong. If the panic of 1873 had occurred in 1876
there would have been no occasion for a commission to sit

132 INTERVIEWS.

on Tilden. If it had struck us in 1880, Hancock would have
been elected. Neither result would have its occasion in the
superiority of the Democratic party, but in the belief that
the Republican party was in some vague way blamable for
the condition of things, and there should be a change. The
Republican party is not as strong as it used to be. The old
.eaders have dropped out and no persons have yet taken
their places. Elaine has dropped out, and is now writing
a book. Conkling dropped out and is now practicing law,
and so I might go on enumerating leaders who have
severed their connection with the party and are no longer
identified with it.

Question. What is your opinion regarding the Republican
nomination for President?

Answer. My belief is that the Republicans will have to
nominate some man who has not been conspicuous in any
faction, and upon whom all can unite. As a consequence
he must be a new man. The Democrats must do the same.
They must nominate a new man. The old ones have been
defeated so often that they start handicapped with their own
histories, and failure in the past is very poor raw material
out of which to manufacture faith for the future. My own
judgment is that for the Democrats, McDonald is as strong
a man as they can get. He is a man of most excellent
sense and would be regarded as a safe man. Tilden ? He
is dead, and he occupies no stronger place in the general
heart than a graven image. With no magnetism, he has
nothing save his smartness to recommend him.

Question. What are your views, generally expressed, on
the tariff ?

Answer. There are a great many Democrats for protection
and a great many for so-called free trade. I think the
large majority of American people favor a reasonable tariff
for raising our revenue and protecting our manufacturers. I
do not believe in tariff for revenue only, but for revenue and

INTERVIEWS. 133

protection. The Democrats would have carried the counti y
had they combined revenue and incidental protection.

Question. Are they rectifying the error now?

Answer. I believe they are, already. They will do it next
fall. If they do not put it in their platform they will em
body it in their speeches. I do not regard the tariff as a
local, but a national issue, notwithstanding Hancock in
clined to the belief that it was the former. — The Times, Chicago,

Illinois, October 13, 1883.

THE REPUBLICAN DEFEAT IN OHIO.

Question. What is your explanation of the Republican
disaster last Tuesday ?

Answer. Too much praying and not enough paying, is my
explanation of the Republican defeat.

First. I think the attempt to pass the Prohibition Amend
ment lost thousands of votes. The people of this country,
no matter how much they may deplore the evils of intem
perance, are not yet willing to set on foot a system of spying
into each other's affairs. They know that prohibition would
need thousands of officers — that it would breed informers
and spies and peekers and skulkers by the hundred in
every county. They know that laws do not of themselves
make good people. Good people make good laws. Ameri
cans do not wish to be temperate upon compulsion. The
spirit that resents interference in these matters is the same
spirit that made and keeps this a free country. All this
crusade and prayer-meeting business will not do in politics.
We must depend upon the countless influences of civilization,
upon science, art, music — upon the softening influences of
kindness and argument. As life becomes valuable people
will take care of it. Temperance upon compulsion destroys
something more valuable than itself — liberty, I am for the
largest liberty in all things.

Second. The Prohibitionists, in my opinion, traded with

134

INTERVIEWS.

Democrats. The Democrats were smart enough to know
that prohibition could not carry, and that they could safely
trade. The Prohibitionists were insane enough to vote for
their worst enemies, just for the sake of polling a large vote
for prohibition, and were fooled as usual.

Thirdly. Certain personal hatreds of certain Republican
politicians. These were the causes which led to Republican
defeat in Ohio.

Question. Will it necessitate the nomination of an Ohio
Republican next year?

Answer. I do not think so. Defeat is apt to breed dis
sension, and on account of that dissension the party will
have to take a man from some other State. One politician
will say to another, "You did it," and another will reply,
"You are the man who ruined the party." I think we have
given Ohio her share ; certainly she has given us ours.

Question. Will this reverse seriously affect Republican
chances next year ?

Answer. If the country is prosperous next year, if the
crops are good, if prices are fair, if Pittsburg is covered with
smoke, if the song of the spindle is heard in Lowell, if stocks
are healthy, the Republicans will again succeed. If the
reverse as to crops and forges and spindles, then the Demo
crats will win. It is a question of "chinch-bugs," and floods
and drouths.

Question. Who, in your judgment, would be the strongest
man the Republicans could put up ?

Answer. Last year I thought General Sherman, but he
has gone to Missouri, and now I am looking around. The

first day I find OUt I will telegraph yOU. — Th* Democrat, Dayton,
Ohio. October 15, 1883.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

Question. What do you think of the recent opinion of
the Supreme Court touching the rights of the colored man ?

Answer. I think it is all wrong. The intention of the
framers of the amendment, by virtue of which the law was
passed, was that no distinction should be made in inns, in
hotels, cars, or in theatres ; in short, in public places, on
account of color, race, or previous condition. The object of
the men who framed that amendment to the Constitution
was perfectly clear, perfectly well known, perfectly under
stood. They intended to secure, by an amendment to the
fundamental law, what had been fought for by hundreds of
thousands of men. They knew that the institution of
slavery had cost rebellion ; they also knew that the spirit
of caste was only slavery in another form. They intended
to kill that spirit. Their object was that the law, like the
sun, should shine upon all, and that no man keeping a
hotel, no corporation running cars, no person manag
ing a theatre should make any distinction on account of
race or color. This amendment is above all praise. It was
the result of a moral exaltation, such as the world never
before had seen. There were years during the war, and
after, when the American people were simply sublime ;
when their generosity was boundless ; when they were
willing to endure any hardship to make this an absolutely
free country.

This decision of the Supreme Court puts the best people
of the colored race at the mercy of the meanest portion of
the white race. It allows a contemptible white man to
trample upon a good colored man. I believe in drawing a
line between good and bad, between clean and unclean, but
I do not believe in drawing a color line wrhich is as cruel as
the lash of slavery. (i85)

136 INTERVIEWS.

I ain willing to be on an equality in all hotels, in all cars,
in all theatres, with colored people. I make no distinction
of race. Those make the distinction who cannot afford not
to. If nature has made no distinction between me and some
others, I do not ask the aid of the Legislature. I am willing
to associate with all good, clean persons, irrespective of
complexion.

This decision virtually gives away one of the great prin
ciples for which the war was fought. It carries the doc
trine of " State Rights " to the Democratic extreme, and
renders necessary either another amendment or a new
court.

I agree with Justice Harlan. He has taken a noble and
a patriotic stand. Kentucky rebukes Massachusetts ! I am
waiting with some impatience — impatient because I antici
pate a pleasure — for his dissenting opinion. Only a little
while ago Justice Harlau took a very noble stand on the
Virginia Coupon cases, in which was involved the right of
a State to repudiate its debts. Now he has taken a stand
in favor of the civil rights of the colored man; and in both
instances I think he is right.

This decision may, after all, help the Republican party.
A decision of the Supreme Court aroused the indignation
of the entire North, and I hope the present decision
will have a like effect. The good people of this country
will not be satisfied until every man beneath the flag,
without the slightest respect to his complexion, stands
on a perfect equality before the law with every other. Any
government that makes a distinction on account of color, is
a disgrace to the age in which we live. The idea that a man
like Frederick Douglass can be denied entrance to a car, that
the doors of a hotel can be shut in his face ; that he may
be prevented from entering a theatre — the idea that there
shall be some ignominious corner into which such a man

INTERVIEWS. 137

can be thrown by a decision of the Supreme Court ! This
idea is simply absurd.

Question. What remains to be done now, and who is going
to do it ?

Answer. For a 'good while people have been saying that
the Republican party has outlived its usefulness ; that there
is very little difference now between the parties ; that there
is hardly enough left to talk about. This decision opens
the whole question. This decision says to the Republican
party, " Your mission is not yet ended. This is not a free
country. Our flag does not protect the rights of a human
being." This decision is the tap of a drum. The old vet
erans will fall into line. This decision gives the issue for
the next campaign, and it may be that the Supreme Court
has builded wiser than it knew. This is a greater question
than the tariff or free trade. It is a question of freedom, of
human rights, of the sacredness of humanity.

The real Americans, the real believers in Liberty, will
give three cheers for Judge Harlan.

One word more. The Government is bound to protect its
citizens, not only when they are away from home, but when
they are under the flag. In time of war the Government
has a right to draft any citizen ; to put that citizen in the
line of battle, and compel him to fight for the nation. If
the Government when imperiled has the right to compel a
citizen, whether white or black, to defend with his blood the
flag, that citizen, when imperiled, has the right to demand
protection from the Nation. The Nation cannot then say,
"You must appeal to your State." If the citizen must ap
peal to the State for redress, then the citizen should defend
the State and not the General Government, and the doctrine

Of State Rights then becomes Complete. — The National Republican,
Washington, D. C., October 17, 1883.

JUSTICE HARLAN AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

Question. What do you think of Justice Harlan's dissent
ing opinion in the Civil Rights case ?

Answer. I have just read it and think it admirable in
every respect. It is unanswerable. He has given to
words their natural meaning. He has recognized the in
tention of the framers of the recent amendments. There
is nothing in this opinion that is strained, insincere,
or artificial. It is frank and manly. It is solid ma
sonry, without crack or flaw. He does not resort to
legal paint or putty, or to verbal varnish or veneer. He
states the position of his brethren of the bench with
perfect fairness, and overturns it with perfect ease. He has
drawn an instructive parallel between the decisions of the
olden time, upholding the power of Congress to deal with
individuals in the interests of slavery, and the power con
ferred on Congress by the recent amendments. He has
shown by the old decisions, that when a duty is enjoined
upon Congress, ability to perform it is given ; that when a
certain end is required, all necessary means are granted.
He also shows that the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and of
1850, rested entirely upon the implied power of Congress to
enforce a master's rights ; and that power was once implied
in favor of slavery against human rights, and implied from
language shadowy, feeble and uncertain when compared
with the language of the recent amendments. He has
shown, too, that Congress exercised the utmost ingenuity
in devising laws to enforce the master's claim. Implication
was held ample to deprive a human being of his liberty, but
to secure freedom, the doctrine of implication is abandoned.
As a foundation for wrong, implication was their rock. As

(138)

INTERVIEWS. 139

a foundation for right, it is now sand. Implied power then
was sufficient to enslave, while power expressly given is
now impotent to protect.

Question. What do you think of the use he has made of
the Dred Scott decision ?

Answer. Well, I think he has shown conclusively that
the present decision, under the present circumstances, is far
worse than the Dred Scott decision was under the then cir
cumstances. The Dred Scott decision was a libel upon the
best men of the Revolutionary period. That decision
asserted broadly that our forefathers regarded the negroes
as having no rights which white men were bound to respect ;
that the negroes were merely merchandise, and that that
opinion was fixed and universal in the civilized portion of
the white race, and that no one thought of disputing it.
Yet Franklin contended that slavery might be abolished
under the preamble of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson
said that if the slave should rise to cut the throat of his
master, God had no attribute that would side against the
slave. Thomas Paine attacked the institution with all the
intensity and passion of his nature. John Adams regarded
the institution with horror. So did every civilized man,
South and North.

Justice Harlan shows conclusively that the Thirteenth
Amendment was adopted in the light of the Dred Scott
decision ; that it overturned and destroyed, not simply the
decision, but the reasoning upon which it was based ; that
it proceeded upon the ground that the colored people had
rights that white men were bound to respect, not only, but
that the Nation was bound to protect. He takes the
ground that the amendment was suggested by the condition
of that race, which had been declared by the Supreme Court
of the United States to have no rights which white men
were bound to respect ; that it was made to protect people
whose rights had been invaded, and whose strong arms had

146 INTERVIEWS.

assisted in the overthrow of the Rebellion ; that it was made
for the purpose of putting these men upon a legal equality
with white citizens.

Justice Harlan also shows that while legislation of Con
gress to enforce a master's right was upheld by implication,
the rights of the negro do not depend upon that doctrine ;
that the Thirteenth Amendment does not rest upon implica
tion, or upon inference; that by its terms it places the
power in Congress beyond the possibility of a doubt — con
ferring the power to enforce the amendment by appropriate
legislation in express terms; and he also shows that the
Supreme Court has admitted that legislation for that pur
pose may be direct and primary. Had not the power been
given in express terms, Justice Harlan contends that the
sweeping declaration that neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude shall exist would by implication confer the power.
He also shows conclusively that, under the Thirteenth
Amendment, Congress has the right by appropriate legislation
to protect the colored people against the deprivation of any
right on account of their race, and that Congress is not nec
essarily restricted, under the Thirteenth Amendment, to
legislation against slavery as an institution, but that power
may be exerted to the extent of protecting the race from
discrimination in respect to such rights as belong to free
men, where such discrimination is based on race or color.

If Justice Harlan is wrong the amendments are left with
out force and Congress without power. No purpose can be
assigned for their adoption. No object can be guessed that
was to be accomplished. They become words, so arranged
that they sound like sense, but when examined fall mean-
inglessly apart. Under the decision of the Supreme Court
they are Quaker cannon — cloud forts — "property" for
political stage scenery — coats of mail made of bronzed
paper — shields of gilded pasteboard — swords of lath.

Question. Do you wish to say anything as to the reason-

INTERVIEWS. 141

ing of Justice Harlan on the rights of colored people on
railways, in inns and theatres ?

Answer. Yes, I do. That part of the opinion is especially
strong. He shows conclusively that a common carrier is
in the exercise of a sort of public-office and has public
duties to perform, and that he cannot exonerate himself
from the performance of these duties without the consent
of the parties concerned. He also shows that railroads are
public highways, and that the railway company is the agent
of the State, and that a railway, although built by private
capital, is just as public in its nature as though constructed
by the State itself. He shows that the railway is devoted to
public use, and subject to be controlled by the State for the
public benefit, and that for these reasons the colored man
has the same rights upon the railway that he has upon the
public highway.

Justice Harlan shows that the same law is applicable to
inns that is applicable to railways ; that an inn-keeper is
bound to take all travelers if he can accommodate them ;
that he is not to select his guests ; that he has no right to
say to one "you may come in," and to another "you shall
not;" that every one who conducts himself in a proper
manner has a right to be received. He shows conclusively
that an inn-keeper is a sort of public servant; that lie is in
the exercise of a quasi public employment, that he is given
special privileges, and charged with duties of a public
character.

As to theatres, I think his argument most happy. It is
this: Theatres are licensed by law. The authority to
maintain them comes from the public. The colored race
being a part of the public, representing the power granting
the license, why should the colored people license a man
ager to open his doors to the white man and shut them in
the face of the black man ? Why should they be compelled
to license that which they are not permitted to enjoy?

142 INTERVIEWS.

Justice Harlan shows that Congress has the power to pre
vent discrimination on account of race or color on railways,
at inns, and in places of public amusements, and has this
power under the Thirteenth Amendment.

In discussing the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Harlan
points out that a prohibition upon a State is not a power in
Congress or the National Government, but is simply a
denial of power to the State ; that such was the Constitution
before the Fourteenth Amendment. He shows, however,
that the Fourteenth Amendment presents the first instance
in our history of the investiture of Congress with affirmative
power by legislation to enforce an express prohibition upon
the States. This is an important point. It is stated with
great clearness, and defended with great force. He shows
that the first clause of the first section of the Fourteenth
Amendment is of a distinctly affirmative character, and that
Congress would have had the power to legislate directly as
to that section simply by implication, but that as to that as
well as the express prohibitions upon the States, express
power to legislate was given.

There is one other point made by Justice Harlan which
transfixes as with a spear the decision of the Court. It is
this : As soon as the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments
were adopted the colored citizen was entitled to the protection
of section two, article four, namely : " The citizens of each
State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities
of citizens of the several States." Now, suppose a colored
citizen of Mississippi moves to Tennessee. Then, under
the section last quoted, he would immediately become in
vested with all the privileges and immunities of a white
citizen of Tennessee. Although denied these privileges and
immunities in the State from which he emigrated, in the
State to which he immigrates he could not be discrimin
ated against on account of his color under the second
section of the fourth article. Now, is it possible that he

INTERVIEWS. 143

gets additional rights by immigration ? Is it possible that
the General Government is under a greater obligation to
protect him in a State of which he is not a citizen than in
a State of which he is a citizen ? Must he leave home for
protection, and after he has lived long enough in the State
to which he immigrates to become a citizen there, must he
again move in order to protect his rights? Must one adopt
the doctrine of peripatetic protection — the doctrine that the
Constitution is good only in transitu, and that when the
citizen stops, the Constitution goes on and leaves him with
out protection ?

Justice Harlan shows that Congress had the right to
legislate directly while that power was only implied, but that
the moment the power was conferred in express terms, then
according to the Supreme Court.it was lost.

There is another splendid definition given by Justice
Harlan — a line drawn as broad as the Mississippi. It is the
distinction between the rights conferred by a State and
rights conferred by the Nation. Admitting that many
rights conferred by a State cannot be enforced directly by
Congress, Justice Harlan shows that rights granted by the
Nation to an individual may be protected by direct legisla
tion. This is a distinction that should not be forgotten,
and it is a definition clear and perfect.

Justice Harlan has shown that the Supreme Court failed
to take into consideration the intention of the framers of the
amendment ; failed to see that the powers of Congress were
given by express terms and did not rest upon implication ;
failed to see that the Thirteenth Amendment was broad
enough to cover the Civil Rights Act ; failed to see that under
the three amendments rights and privileges were conferred
by the Nation on citizens of the several States, and that
these rights are under the perpetual protection of the
General Government, and that for their enforcement Con
gress has the right to legislate directly ; failed to see that

144 INTERVIEWS.

all implications are now in favor of liberty instead of
slavery ; failed to comprehend that we have a new nation,
with a new foundation, with different objects, ends, and
aims, for the attainment of which we use different means
and have been clothed with greater powers ; failed to see that
the Republic changed front; failed to appreciate the real
reasons for the adoption of the amendments, and failed to
understand that the Civil Rights Act was passed in order
that a citizen of the United States might appeal from local
prejudice to national justice.

Justice Harlan shows that it was the object to accomplish
for the black man what had been accomplished for the
white man — that is, to protect all their rights as free men
and citizens; and that the one underlying purpose of the
amendments and of the congressional legislation has been to
clothe the black race with all the rights of citizenship, and
to compel a recognition of their rights by citizens and
States — that the object was to do away with class tyranny,
the meanest and basest form of oppression.

If Justice Harlan is wrong in his position, then, it may
truthfully be said of the three amendments that :

" The law hath bubbles as the water has,
And these are of them."

The decision of the Supreme Court denies the protection
of the Nation to the citizens of the Nation. That decision
has already borne fruit — the massacre at Danville. The
protection of the Nation having been withdrawn, the colored
man was left to the mercy of local prejudices and hatreds.
He is without appeal, without redress. The Supreme Court
tells him that he must depend upon his enemies for justice.

Question. You seem to agree with all that Justice Harlan
has said, and to have the greatest admiration for his opinion ?

Answer. Yes, a man rises from reading this dissenting
opinion refreshed, invigorated, and strengthened. It is a
mental and moral tonic. It was produced after a clear head

INTERVIEWS. 145

had held conference with a good heart. It will furnish a
perfectly clear plank, without knot or wind-shake, for the
next Republican platform. It is written in good plain
English, and ornamented with good sound sense. The
average man can and will understand its every word.
There is no subterfuge in it.

Each position is taken in the open field. There is no
resort to quibbles or technicalities — no hiding. Nothing is
secreted in the sleeve — no searching for blind paths — no
stooping and looking for ancient tracks, grass -grown and
dim. Each argument travels the highway — " the big road."
It is logical. The facts and conclusions agree, and fall
naturally into line of battle. It is sincere and candid —
unpretentious and unanswerable. It is a grand defence of
human rights — a brave and manly plea for universal justice.
It leaves the decision of the Supreme Court without argu
ment, without reason, and without excuse. Such an
exhibition of independence, courage and ability has won for
Justice Harlan the respect and admiration of "both sides,"
and places him in the front rank of constitutional lawyers.

—The Inter-Ocean, Chicago, Illinois, November 29, 1883.

POLITICS AND THEOLOGY.

Question, What is your opinion of Brewster's administra
tion?

Answer. I hardly think I ought to say much about the
administration of Mr. Brewster. Of course many things
have been done that I thought, and still think, extremely
bad; but whether Mr. Brewster was responsible for the
things done, or not, I do not pretend to say. When he was
appointed to his present position, there was great excite
ment in the country about the Star Route cases, and Mr.
Brewster was expected to prosecute everybody and every
thing to the extent of the law ; in fact, I believe he was
appointed by reason of having made such a promise. At

146 INTERVIEWS.

that time there were hundreds of people interested in ex
aggerating all the facts connected with the Star Route cases,
and when there were no facts to be exaggerated, they
made some, and exaggerated them afterward. It may be
that the Attorney General was misled, and he really sup
posed that all he heard was true. My objection to the ad
ministration of the Department of Justice is, that a resort
was had to spies and detectives. The battle was not fought
in the open field. Influences were brought to bear. Nearly
all departments of the Government were enlisted. Every
thing was done to create a public opinion in favor of the
prosecution. Everything was done that the cases might be
decided on prejudice instead of upon facts.

Everything was done to demoralize, frighten and overawe
judges, witnesses and jurors. I do not pretend to say who
was responsible, possibly I am not an impartial judge. I
was deeply interested at the time, and felt all of these things,
rather than reasoned about them.

Possibly I cannot give a perfectly unbiased opinion.
Personally, I have no feeling now upon the subject.

The Department of Justice, in spite of its methods, did
not succeed. That was enough for me. I think, however,
when the country knows the facts, that the people will not
approve of what was done. I do not believe in trying cases
in the newspapers before they are submitted to jurors. That
is a little too early. Neither do I believe in trying them in
the newspapers after the verdicts have been rendered. That
is a little too late.

Question. What are Mr. Elaine's chances for the presi
dency ?

Answer. My understanding is that Mr. Elaine is not a
candidate for the nomination ; that he does not wish his
name to be used in that connection. He ought to have been
nominated in 1876, and if he were a candidate, he would
probably have the largest following ; but my understanding

INTERVIEWS. 147

is, that he does not, in any event, wish to be a candidate.
He is a man perfectly familiar with the politics of this
country, knows its history by heart, and is in every respect
probably as well qualified to act as its Chief Magistrate as
any man in the nation. He is a man of ideas, of action,
and has positive qualities. He would not wait for something
to turn up, and things would not have to wait long for him
to turn them up.

Question. Who do you think will be nominated at Chicago ?

Answer. Of course I have not the slightest idea who will
be nominated. I may have an opinion as to who ought to
be nominated, and yet I may be greatly mistaken in that
opinion. There are hundreds of men in the Republican
party, any one of whom, if elected, would make a good, sub
stantial President, and there are many thousands of men
about whom I know nothing, any one of whom would in all
probability make a good President. We do not want any
man to govern this country. This country governs itself.
We want a President who will honestly and faithfully exe
cute the laws, who will appoint postmasters and do the
requisite amount of handshaking on public occasions, and
we have thousands of men who can discharge the duties of
that position. Washington is probably the worst place to
find out anything definite upon the subject of presidential
booms. I have thought for a long time that one of the most
valuable men in the country was General Sherman. Every
body knows who and what he is. He has one great advan
tage — he is a frank and outspoken man. He has opinions
and he never hesitates about letting them be known. There
is considerable talk now about Justice Harlan. His dis
senting opinion in the Civil Rights case has made every
colored man his friend, and I think it will take considerable
public patronage to prevent a good many delegates from the
Southern States voting for him.

Question. What are your present views on theology ?

148 INTERVIEWS.

Answer. Well, I think my views have not undergone any
change that I know of. I still insist that observation, rea
son and experience are the things to be depended upon in
this world. I still deny the existence of the supernatural.
I still insist that nobody can be good for you, or bad for you ;
that you cannot be punished for the crimes of others, nor
rewarded for their virtues. I still insist that the con
sequences of good actions are always good, and those of bad
actions always bad. I insist that nobody can plant thistles
and gather figs; neither can they plant figs and gather
thistles. I still deny that a finite being can commit an infinite
sin ; but I continue to insist that a God who would punish a
man forever is an infinite tyrant. My views have undergone
no change, except that the evidence of that truth constantly
increases, and the dogmas of the church look, if possible,
a little absurder every day. Theology, you know, is not a
science. It stops at the grave ; and faith is the end of
theology. Ministers have not even the advantage of the
doctors ; the doctors sometimes can tell by a post-mortem
examination whether they killed the man or not; but by
cutting a man open after he is dead, the wisest theologians
cannot tell what has become of his soul, and whether it was
injured or helped by a belief in the inspiration of the Scrip
tures. Theology depends on assertion for evidence, and on

faith for disciples. — The Tribune, Denver, Colorado, January 17, 1880.

MORALITY AND IMMORTALITY.

Question. I see that the clergy are still making all kinds
of charges against you and your doctrines.

Answer. Yes. Some of the charges are true and some are
not. I suppose that they intend to get in the vicinity of
veracity, and are probably stating my belief as it is honestly
misunderstood by them. I admit that I have said and that
I still think that Christianity is a blunder. But the ques
tion arises, What is Christianity ? I do not mean, when I

INTERVIEWS. 149

say that Christianity is a blunder, that the morality taught
by Christians is a mistake. Morality is not distinctively
Christian, any more than it is Mohammedan. Morality is
human, it belongs to no ism, and does not depend for a
foundation upon the supernatural, or upon any book, or up
on any creed. Morality is itself a foundation. When I say
that Christianity is a blunder, I mean all those things dis
tinctively Christian are blunders. It is a blunder to say that
an infinite being lived in Palestine, learned the carpenter's
trade, raised the dead, cured the blind, and cast out devils, and
that this God was finally assassinated by the Jews. This is
absurd. All these statements are blunders, if not worse. I do
not believe that Christ ever claimed that he was of supernat
ural origin, or that he wrought miracles, or that he would
rise from the dead. If he did, he was mistaken — honestly
mistaken, perhaps, but still mistaken.

The morality inculcated by Mohammed is good. The
immorality inculcated by Mohammed is bad. If Mohammed
was a prophet of God, it does not make the morality he
taught any better, neither does it make the immorality any
better or any worse.

By this time the whole world ought to know that morality
does not need to go into partnership with miracles. Morality
is based upon the experience of mankind. It does not have
to learn of inspired writers, or of gods, or divine persons.
It is a lesson that the whole human race has been learning
and learning from experience. He who upholds, or believes
in, or teaches, the miraculous, commits a blunder.

Now, what is morality ? Morality is the best thing to do
under the circumstances. Anything that tends to the hap
piness of mankind is moral. Anything that tends to unhap-
piness is immoral. We apply to the moral world rules and
regulations as we do in the physical world. The man who
does justice, or tries to do so — who is honest and kind and
gives to others what he claims for himself, is a moral man. All

I5O INTERVIEWS.

actions must be judged by their consequences. Where
the consequences are good, the actions are good. Where the
consequences are bad, the actions are bad ; and all conse
quences are learned from experience. After we have had a
certain amount of experience, we then reason from analogy.
We apply our logic and say that a certain course will bring
destruction, another course will bring happiness. There is
nothing inspired about morality — nothing supernatural. It
is simply good, common sense, going hand in hand with
kindness.

Morality is capable of being demonstrated. You do not
have to take the word of anybody ; you can observe and ex
amine for yourself. Larceny is the enemy of industry, and
industry is good ; therefore larceny is immoral. The family
is the unit of good government ; anything that tends to de
stroy the family is immoral. Honesty is the mother of con
fidence ; it unites, combines and solidifies society. Dishon
esty is disintegration ; it destroys confidence ; it brings
social chaos ; it is therefore immoral.

I also admit that I regard the Mosaic account of the crea
tion as an absurdity — as a series of blunders. Probably
Moses did the best he could. He had never talked with
Humboldt or Laplace. He knew nothing of geology or
astronomy. He had not the slightest suspicion of Kepler's
Three Laws. He never saw a copy of Newton's Principia.
Taking all these things into consideration, I think Moses
did the best he could.

The religious people say now that " days " did not mean
days. Of these " six days " they make a kind of telescope,
which you can push in or draw out at pleasure. If the
geologists find that more time was necessary they will stretch
them out. Should it turn out that the world is not quite as
old as some think, they will push them up. The "six days"
can now be made to suit any period of time. Nothing can
be more childish, frivolous or contradictory.

INTERVIEWS. 151

Only a few years ago the Mosaic account was considered
true, and Moses was regarded as a scientific authority.
Geology and astronomy were measured by the Mosaic
standard. The opposite is now true. The church has
changed; and instead of trying to prove that modern as
tronomy and geology are false, because they do not agree
with Moses, it is now endeavoring to prove that the account
by Moses is true, because it agrees with modern astronomy
and geology. In other words, the standard has changed ;
the ancient is measured by the modern, and where the literal
statement in the Bible does not agree with modern discov
eries, they do not change the discoveries, but give new mean
ings to the old account. We are not now endeavoring to
reconcile science with the Bible, but to reconcile the Bible
with science.

Nothing shows the extent of modern doubt more than the
eagerness with which Christians search for some new tes
timony. Luther answered Copernicus with a passage of
Scripture, and he answered him to the satisfaction of ortho
dox ignorance.

The truth is that the Jews adopted the stories of Creation,
the Garden of Eden, Forbidden Fruit, and the Fall of Man.
They were told by older barbarians than they, and the Jews
gave them to us.

I never said that the Bible is all bad. I have always ad
mitted that there are many good and splendid things in
the Jewish Scriptures, and many bad things. What I in
sist is that we should have the courage and the common
sense to accept the good, and throw away the bad. Evil is
not good because found in good company, and truth is still
truth, even when surrounded by falsehood.

Question. I see that you are frequently charged with dis
respect toward your parents — with lack of reverence for the
opinions of your father ?

Answer. I think my father and mother upon several re-

152 INTERVIEWS.

ligious questions were mistaken. In fact, I have no doubt
that they were ; but I never felt under the slightest obli
gation to defend my father's mistakes. No one can defend
what he thinks is a mistake, without being dishonest. That
is a poor way to show respect for parents. Every Protestant
clergyman asks men and women who had Catholic parents,
to desert the church in which they were raised. They have
no hesitation in saying to these people that their fathers
and mothers were mistaken, and that they were deceived by
priests and popes.

The probability is that we are all mistaken about almost
everything ; but it is impossible for a man to be respectable
enough to make a mistake respectable. There is nothing
remarkably holy in a blunder, or praiseworthy in stubbing
the toe of the mind against a mistake. Is it possible that
logic stands paralyzed in the presence of parental absurdity ?
Suppose a man has a bad father ; is he bound by the bad
father's opinion, when he is satisfied that the opinion is
wrong ? How good does a father have to be, in order to
put his son under obligation to defend his blunders ? Sup
pose the father thinks one way, and the mother the other ;
what are the children to do ? Suppose the father changes
his opinion ; what then ? Suppose the father thinks one
way and the mother the other, and they both die when the
boy is young ; and the boy is bound out ; whose mistakes is
he then bound to follow ? Our missionaries tell the bar
barian boy that his parents are mistaken, that they know
nothing, and that the wooden god is nothing but a sense
less idol. They do not hesitate to tell this boy that his
mother believed lies, and hugged, it may be to her dying
heart, a miserable delusion. Why should a barbarian boy
cast reproach upon his parents ?

I believe it was Christ who commanded his disciples to
leave father and mother ; not only to leave them, but to
desert them ; and not only to desert father and mother, but

INTERVIEWS. 153

to desert wives and children. It is also told of Christ that
he said that he came to set fathers against children and
children against fathers. Strange that a follower of his
should object to a man differing in opinion from his parents!
The truth is, logic knows nothing of consanguinity ; facts
have no relatives but other facts ; and these facts do not
depend upon the character of the person who states them,
or upon the position of the discoverer. And this leads me
to another branch of the same subject.

The ministers are continually saying that certain great
men — kings, presidents, statesmen, millionaires — have be
lieved in the inspiration of the Bible. Only the other day,
I read a sermon in which Carlyle was quoted as having
said that " the Bible is a noble book." That all may be
and yet the book not be inspired. But what is the simple
assertion of Thomas Carlyle worth ? If the assertion is
based upon a reason, then it is worth simply the value of
the reason, and the reason is worth just as much without
the assertion, but without the reason the assertion is
worthless. Thomas Carlyle thought, and solemnly put the
thought in print, that his father was a greater man than
Robert Burns. His opinion did Burns no harm, and his
father no good. Since reading his " Reminiscences," I
have no great opinion of his opinion. In some respects he
was undoubtedly a great man, in others a small one.

No man should give the opinion of another as authority
and in place of fact and reason, unless he is willing to take
all the opinions of that man. An opinion is worth the
warp and woof of fact and logic in it and no more. A man
cannot add to the truthfulness of truth. In the ordinary
business of life, we give certain weight to the opinion of
specialists — to the opinion of doctors, lawyers, scientists,
and historians. Within the domain of the natural, we
take the opinions of our fellow- men ; but we do not feel
that we are absolutely bound by these opinions. We have

154 INTERVIEWS.

the right to re-examine them, and if we find they are
wrong we feel at liberty to say so. A doctor is supposed
to have studied medicine; to have examined and explored
the questions entering into his profession; but we know
that doctors are often mistaken. We also know that there
are many schools of medicine ; that these schools disagree
with one another, and that the doctors of each school dis
agree with one another. We also know that many patients
die, and so far as we know, these patients have not come
back to tell us whether the doctors killed them or not. The
grave generally prevents a demonstration. It is exactly
the same with the clergy. They have many schools of
theology, all despising each other. Probably no two mem
bers of the same church exactly agree. They cannot
demonstrate their propositions, because between the
premise and the logical conclusion or demonstration,
stands the tomb. A gravestone marks the end of theology.
In some cases, the physician can, by a post-mortem exam
ination, find what killed the patient, but there is no theo
logical post-mortem. It is impossible, by cutting a body
open, to find where the soul has gone ; or whether baptism,
or the lack of it, had the slightest effect upon final destiny.
The church, knowing that there are no facts beyond the
coffin, relies upon opinions, assertions and theories. For
this reason it is always asking alms of distinguished peo
ple. Some President wishes to be re-elected, and there
upon speaks about the Bible as " the corner-stone of
American Liberty." This sentence is a mouth large
enough to swallow any church, and from that time forward
the religious people will be citing that remark of the poli
tician to substantiate the inspiration of the Scriptures.

The man who accepts opinions because they have been
entertained by distinguished people, is a mental snob.
When we blindly follow authority we are serfs. When our
reason is convinced we are freemen. It is rare to find a

INTERVIEWS. 155

fully rounded and complete man. A man may be a great
doctor and a poor mechanic, a successful politician and a
poor metaphysician, a poor painter and a good poet.

The rarest thing in the world is a logician — that is to
say, a man who knows the value of a fact. It is hard to
find mental proportion. Theories may be established by
names, but facts cannot be demonstrated in that way. Very
small people are sometimes right, and very great people
are sometimes wrong. Ministers are sometimes right.

In all the philosophies of the world there are undoubtedly
contradictions and absurdities. The mind of man is imper
fect and perfect results are impossible. A mirror, in order
to reflect a perfect picture, a perfect copy, must itself be
perfect. The mind is a little piece of intellectual glass
the surface of which is not true, not perfect. In conse
quence of this, every image is more or less distorted. The
less we know, the more we imagine that we can know ; but
the more we know, the smaller seems the sum of knowl
edge. The less we know, the more we expect, the more we
hope for, and the more seems within the range of proba
bility. The less we have, the more we want. There never
was a banquet magnificent enough to gratify the imagina
tion of a beggar. The moment people begin to reason
about what they call the supernatural, they seem to lose
their minds. People seem to have lost their reason in
religious matters, very much as the dodo is said to have
lost its wings; they have been restricted to a little inspired
island, and by disuse their reason has been lost.

In the Jewish Scriptures you will find simply the litera
ture of the Jews. You will find there the tears and anguish
of captivity, patriotic fervor, national aspiration, proverbs
for the conduct of daily life, laws, regulations, customs,
legends, philosophy and folly. These books, of course,
were not written by one man, but by many authors. They
do not agree, having been written in different centuries,

156 INTERVIEWS.

under different circumstances. I see that Mr. Beecher has
at last concluded that the Old Testament does not teach
the doctrine of immortality. He admits that from Mount
Sinai came no hope for the dead. It is very curious that
we find in the Old Testament no funeral service. No one
stands by the dead and predicts another life. In the Old
Testament there is no promise of another world. I have
sometimes thought that while the Jews were slaves in Egypt,
the doctrine of immortality became hateful. They built
so many tombs ; they carried so many burdens to commem
orate the dead ; they saw a nation waste its wealth to
adorn its graves, and leave the living naked to embalm the
dead, that they concluded the doctrine was a curse and
never should be taught.

Question. If the Jews did not believe in immortality, how
do you account for the allusions made to witches and wizards
and things of that character ?

Answer. When Saul visited the Witch of Endor, and she,
by some magic spell, called up Samuel, the prophet said :
"Why hast thou disquieted me, to call me up?" He did
not say: Why have you called me from another world?
The idea expressed is : I was asleep, why did you disturb
that repose which should be eternal? The ancient Jews be
lieved in witches and wizards and familiar spirits; but they
did not seem to think that these spirits had once been men
and women. They spoke of them as belonging to another
world, a world to which man would never find his way. At
that time it was supposed that Jehovah and his angels lived
in the sky, but that region was not spoken of as the destined
home of man. Jacob saw angels going up and down the
ladder, but not the spirits of those he had known. There
are two cases where it seems that men were good enough to
be adopted into the family of heaven. Enoch was translated,
and Elijah was taken up in a chariot of fire. As it is ex
ceedingly cold at the height of a few miles, it is easy to see

INTERVIEWS. 157

why the chariot was of fire, and the same fact explains
another circumstance — the dropping of the mantle. The
Jews probably believed in the existence of other beings — that
is to say, in angels and gods and evil spirits — and that they
lived in other worlds — but there is no passage showing that
they believe in what we call the immortality of the soul.

Question. Do you believe, or disbelieve, in the immortality
of the soul?

Answer. I neither assert nor deny ; I simply admit that I
do not know. Upon that subject I am absolutely without
evidence. This is the only world that I was ever in. There
may be spirits, but I have never met them, and do not know
that I would recognize a spirit. I can form no conception
of what is called spiritual life. It may be that I am de
ficient in imagination, and that ministers have no difficulty
in conceiving of angels and disembodied souls. I have not
the slightest idea how a soul looks, what shape it is, how it
goes from one place to another, whether it walks or flies. I
cannot conceive of the immaterial having form ; neither can
I conceive of anything existing without form, and yet the
fact that I cannot conceive of a thing does not prove that the
thing does not exist, but it does prove that I know nothing
about it, and that being so, I ought to admit my ignorance.
I am satisfied of a good many things that I do not know. I
am satisfied that there is no place of eternal torment. I am
satisfied that that doctrine has done more harm than all the
religious ideas, other than that, have done good. I do not
want to take any hope from any human heart. I have no
objection to people believing in any good thing — no objec
tion to their expecting a crown of infinite joy for every
human being. Many people imagine that immortality must
be an infinite good ; but, after all, there is something terrible
in the idea of endless life. Think of a river that never
reaches the sea ; of a bird that never folds its wings ; of a
journey that never ends. Most people find great pleasure

158 INTERVIEWS.

in thinking about and in believing in another world. There
the prisoner expects to be free ; the slave to find liberty ; the
poor man expects wealth; the rich man happiness; the
peasant dreams of power, and the king of contentment.
They expect to find there what they lack here. I do not
wish to destroy these dreams. I am endeavoring to put out
the everlasting fires. A good, cool grave is infinitely better
than the fiery furnace of Jehovah's wrath. Eternal sleep is
better than eternal pain. For my part I would rather be
annihilated than to be an angel, with all the privileges of
heaven, and yet have within my breast a heart that could be
happy while those who had loved me in this world were
in perdition.

I most sincerely hope that the future life will fulfill all
splendid dreams ; but in the religion of the present day there
is no joy. Nothing is so devoid of comfort, when bending
above our dead, as the assertions of theology unsupported
by a single fact. The promises are so far away, and the
dead are so near. From words spoken eighteen centuries
ago, the echoes are so weak, and the sounds of the
clods on the coffin are so loud. Above the grave what can
the honest minister say ? If the dead were not a Christian,
what then? What comfort can the orthodox clergyman
give to the widow of the honest unbeliever ? If Christianity
is true, the other world will be worse than this. There the
many will be miserable, only the few happy; there the
miserable cannot better their condition ; the future has no
star of hope, and in the east of eternity there can never be a
dawn.

Question. If you take away the idea of eternal punishment,
how do j'ou propose to restrain men ; in what way will you
influence conduct for good ?

Answer. Well, the trouble with religion is that it post
pones punishment and reward to another world. Wrong is
wrong, because it breeds unhappiness. Right is right, be-

INTERVIEWS. 159

cause it tends to the happiness of man. These facts are the
basis of what I call the religion of this world. When a man
does wrong, the consequences follow, and between the cause
and effect, a Redeemer cannot step. Forgiveness cannot
form a breastwork between act and consequence.

There should be a religion of the body — a religion that
will prevent deformity, that will refuse to multiply insanity,
that will not propagate disease — a religion that is judged by
its consequences in this world. Orthodox Christianity has
taught, and still teaches, that in this world the difference
between the good and bad is that the bad enjoy themselves,
while the good carry the cross of virtue with bleeding brows
bound and pierced with the thorns of honesty and kindness.
All this, in my judgment, is immoral. The man who does
wrong carries a cross. There is no world, no star, in which
the result of wrong is real happiness. There is no world,
no star, in which the result of right doing is unhappiness.
Virtue and vice must be the same everywhere.

Vice must be vice everywhere, because its consequences
are evil ; and virtue must be virtue everywhere, because its
consequences are good. There can be no such thing as for
giveness. These facts are the only restraining influences
possible — the innocent man cannot suffer for the guilty and
satisfy the law.

Question. How do you answer the argument, or the fact,
that the church is constantly increasing, and that there are
now four hundred millions of Christians ?

Answer. That is what I call the argument of numbers.
If that argument is good now, it was always good. If
Christians were at any time in the minority, then, accord
ing to this argument, Christianity was wrong. Every re
ligion that has succeeded has appealed to the argument of
numbers. There was a time when Buddhism was in a
majority. Buddha not only had, but has more followers
than Christ. Success is not a demonstration. Mohammed

160 INTERVIEWS.

was a success, and a success from the commencement.
Upon a thousand fields he was victor. Of the scattered
tribes of the desert, he made a nation, and this nation took
the fairest part of Europe from the followers of the cross.
In the history of the world, the success of Mohammed is
unparalleled, but this success does not establish that he was
the prophet of God.

Now, it is claimed that there are some four hundred
millions of Christians. To make that total I am counted as a
Christian ; I am one of the fifty or sixty millions of Christians
in the United States — excluding Indians, not taxed. By the
census report, we are all going to heaven — we are all ortho
dox. At the last great day we can refer with confidence to
the ponderous volumes containing the statistics of the
United States. As a matter of fact, how many Christians
are there in the United States — how many believers in the
inspiration of the Scriptures — how many real followers of
Christ ? I will not pretend to give the number, but I will
venture to say that there are not fifty millions. How many
in England ? Where are the four hundred millions found ?
To make this immense number, they have counted all the
Heretics, all the Catholics, all the Jews, Spiritualists, Uni-
versalists and Unitarians, all the babes, all the idiotic
and insane, all the Infidels, all the scientists, all the unbe
lievers. As a matter of fact, they have no right to count
any except the orthodox members of the orthodox
churches. There may be more "members" now than
formerly, and this increase of members is due to a decrease
of religion. Thousands of members are only nominal
Christians, wearing the old uniform simply because they
do not wish to be charged with desertion. The church, too,
is a kind of social institution, a club with a creed instead of
by-laws, and the creed is never defended unless attacked by
an outsider. No objection is made to the minister because
he is liberal, if he says nothing about it in his pulpit. A

INTERVIEWS. l6l

man like Mr. Beecher draws a congregation, not because he
is a Christian, but because he is a genius ; not because he
is orthodox, but because he has something to say. He is
an intellectual athlete. He is full of pathos and poetry.
He has more description than divinity ; more charity than
creed, and altogether more common sense than theology.
For these reasons thousands of people love to hear him.
On the other hand, there are many people who have a
morbid desire for the abnormal — for intellectual deformities
— for thoughts that have two heads. This accounts for the
success of some of Mr. Beecher's rivals.

Christians claim that success is a test of truth. Has any
church succeeded as well as the Catholic ? Was the tragedy
of the Garden of Eden a success ? Who succeeded there ?
The last best thought is not a success, if you mean that
only that is a success which has succeeded, and if you
mean by succeeding, that it has won the assent of the ma
jority. Besides there is no time fixed for the test. Is that
true which succeeds to-day, or next year, or in the next
century ? Once the Copernican system was not a success.
There is no time fixed. The result is we have to wait. A
thing to exist at all has to be, to a certain extent, a success.
A thing cannot even die without having been a success.
It certainly succeeded enough to have life. Presbyterians
should remember, while arguing the majority argument,
and the success argument, that there are far more Cath
olics than Protestants, and that the Catholics can give a
longer list of distinguished names.

My answer to all this, however, is that the history of the
world shows that ignorance has always been in the ma
jority. There is one right road ; numberless paths that are
wrong. Truth is one ; error is many. When a great truth
has been discovered, one man has pitted himself against the
world. A few think ; the many believe. The few lead ;
the many follow. The light of the new day, as it looks

1 62 INTERVIEWS.

over the window sill of the east, falls at first on only one
forehead.

There is another thing. A great many people pass for
Christians who are not. Only a little while ago a couple of
ladies were returning from church in a carriage. They had
listened to a good orthodox sermon. One said to the other :
" I am going to tell you something — I am going to shock
you — i do not believe the Bible." And the other replied :

"Neither do I." — The News, Detroit, Michigan, Januarys, 1884.

POLITICS, MORMONISM AND MR. BEECHER

Question. What will be the main issues in the next
presidental campaign?

Answer. I think that the principal issues will be civil
rights and protection for American industries. The Demo
cratic party is not a unit on the tariff question — neither is
the Republican ; but I think that a majority of the Demo
crats are in favor of free trade and a majority of Republi
cans in favor of a protective tariff. The Democratic Con
gressmen will talk just enough about free trade to frighten
the manufacturing interests of the country, and probably
not quite enough to satisfy the free traders. The result
will be that the Democrats will talk about reforming the
tariff, but will do nothing but talk. I think the tariff
ought to be reformed in many particulars ; but as long as
we need to raise a great revenue my idea is that it ought
to be so arranged as to protect to the utmost, without pro
ducing monopoly in American manufacturers. I am in
favor of protection because it multiplies industries ; and I
am in favor of a great number of industries because they
develop the brain, because they give employment to all and
allow us to utilize all the muscle and all the sense we have.
If we were all farmers we would grow stupid. If we all
worked at one kind of mechanic art we would grow dull.

INTERVIEWS. 163

But with a variety of industries, with a constant premium
upon ingenuity, with the promise of wealth as the reward
of success in any direction, the people become intelligent,
and while we are protecting our industries we develop our
brains. So I am in favor of the protection of civil rights
by the Federal Government, and that, in my judgment,
will be one of the great issues in the next campaign.

Question. I see that you say that one of the great issues
of the coming campaign will be civil rights ; what do you
mean by that ?

Answer. Well, I mean this. The Supreme Court has
recently decided that a colored man whose rights are
trampled upon, in a State, cannot appeal to the Federal
Government for protection. The decision amounts to this:
That Congress has no right until a State has acted, and has
acted contrary to the Constitution. Now, if a State refuses
to do anything upon the subject, what is the citizen to do ?
My opinion is that the Government is bound to protect its
citizens, and as a consideration for this protection, the
citizen is bound to stand by the Government. When the
nation calls for troops, the citizen of each State is bound
to respond, no matter what his State may think. This
doctrine must be maintained, or the United States ceases
to be a nation. If a man looks to his State for protection,
then he must go with his State. My doctrine is, that there
should be patriotism upon the one hand, and protection
upon the other. If a State endeavors to secede from the
Union, a citizen of that State should be in a position to
defy the State and appeal to the Nation for protection.
The doctrine now is, that the General Government turns
the citizen over to the State for protection, and if the State
does not protect him, that is his misfortune ; and the con
sequence of this doctrine will be to build up the old heresy
of State Sovereignty — a doctrine that was never appealed
to except in the interest of thieving or robbery. That

1 64 INTERVIEWS.

doctrine was first appealed to when the Constitution was
formed, because they were afraid the National Government
would interfere with the slave trade. It was next appealed
to, to uphold the Fugitive Slave Law. It was next appealed
to, to give the territories of the United States to slavery.
Then it was appealed to, to support rebellion, and now out
of this doctrine they attempt to build a breastwork, behind
which they can trample upon the rights of free colored
men.

I believe in the sovereignty of the Nation. A nation
that cannot protect its citizens ought to stop playing
nation. In the old times the Supreme Court found no
difficulty in supporting slavery by " inference ", by " intend-
ment," but now that liberty has became national, the Court
is driven to less than a literal interpretation. If the Con
stitution does not support liberty, it is of no use. To
maintain liberty is the only legitimate object of human
government. I hope the time will come when the judges
of the Supreme Court will be elected, say for a period
of ten years. I do not believe in the legal monk system.
I believe in judges still maintaining an interest in human
affairs.

Question. What do you think of the Mormon question ?

Answer. I do not believe in the bayonet plan. Mormon-
ism must be done away with by the thousand influences of
civilization, by education, by the elevation of the people.
Of course, a gentleman would rather have one noble woman
than a hundred females. I hate the system of polygamy.
Nothing is more infamous. I admit that the Old Testa
ment upholds it. I admit that the patriarchs were mostly
polygamists. I admit that Solomon was mistaken on that
subject. But notwithstanding the fact that polygamy is
upheld by the Jewish Scriptures, I believe it to be a great
wrong. At the same time if you undertake to get that
idea out of the Mormons by force you will not succeed. I

INTERVIEWS. 165

think a good way to do away with that institution would
be for all the churches to unite, bear the expense, and send
missionaries to Utah ; let these ministers call the people
together and read to them the lives of David, Solomon
Abraham and other patriarchs. Let all the missionaries
be called home from foreign fields and teach these people
that they should not imitate the only men with whom God
ever condescended to hold intercourse. Let these frightful
examples be held up to these people, and if it is done earn
estly, it seems to me that the result would be good.

Polygamy exists. All laws upon the subject should take
that fact into consideration, and punishment should be
provided for offences thereafter committed. The children
of Mormons should be legitimatized. In other words, in
attempting to settle this question, we should accomplish all
the good possible, with the least possible harm.

I agree mostly with Mr. Beecher, and I utterly disagree
with the Rev. Mr. Newman. Mr. Newman wants to kill
and slay. He does not rely upon Christianity, but upon
brute force. He has lost his confidence in example, and
appeals to the bayonet. Mr. Newman had a discussion
with one of the Mormon elders, and was put to ignominious
flight ; no wonder that he appeals to force. Having failed
in argument, he calls for artillery ; having been worsted in
the appeal to Scripture, he asks for the sword. He says,
failing to convert, let us kill ; and he takes this position in
the name of the religion of kindness and forgiveness.

Strange that a minister now should throw away the Bible
and yell for a bayonet ; that he should desert the Scriptures
and call for soldiers; that he should lose confidence in the
power of the Spirit and trust in the sword. I recommend
that Mormonism be done away with by distributing the
Old Testament through Utah.

Question. What do you think of the investigation of the
Department of Justice now going on ?

166 INTERVIEWS.

Answer. The result, in my judgment, will depend on its
thoroughness. If Mr. Springer succeeds in proving exactly
what the Department of Justice did, the methods pursued;
if he finds out what their spies and detectives and agents
were instructed to do, then I think the result will be as
disastrous to the Department as beneficial to the country.
The people seem to have forgotten that a little while after
the first Star Route trial three of the agents of the Depart
ment of Justice were indicted for endeavoring to bribe the
jury. They forget that Mr. Bowen, an agent of the Depart
ment of Justice, is a fugitive, because he endeavored to
bribe the foreman of the jury. They seem to forget that
the Department of Justice, in order to cover its own tracks,
had the foreman of the jury indicted because one of its
agents endeavored to bribe him. Probably this investiga
tion will nudge the ribs of the public enough to make
people remember these things. Personally, I have no feel
ing on the subject. It was enough for me that we suc
ceeded in thwarting its methods, in spite of its detectives,
spies, and informers.

The Department is already beginning to dissolve. Brewster
Cameron has left it, and as a reward has been exiled to
Arizona. Mr. Brewster will probably be the next to pack
his official valise. A few men endeavored to win popularity
by pursuing a few others, and thus far they have been con
spicuous failures. MacVeagh and James are to-day enjoying
the oblivion earned by misdirected energy, and Mr. Brewster
will soon keep them company. The history of the world
does not furnish an instance of more flagrant abuse of
power. There never was a trial as shamelessly conducted
by a government. But, as I said before, I have no feeling
now except that of pity.

Question. I see that Mr. Beecher is coming round to your
views on theology ?

Answer. I would not have the egotism to say that he was

INTERVIEWS. 167

coming round to my views, but evidently Mr. Beecher has
been growing. His head has been instructed by his heart ;
and if a man will allow even the poor plant of pity to grow
in his heart he will hold in infinite execration all orthodox
religion. The moment he will allow himself to think that
eternal consequences depend upon human life ; that the few
short years we live in this world determine for an eternity
the question of infinite joy or infinite pain ; the moment he
thinks of that he will see that it is an infinite absurdity.
For instance, a man is born in Arkansas and lives there to
be seventeen or eighteen years of age ; is it possible that he
can be truthfully told at the day of judgment that he had a
fair chance? Just imagine a man being held eternally
responsible for his conduct in Delaware ! Mr. Beecher is a
man of great genius — full of poetry and pathos. Every now
and then he is driven back by the orthodox members of his
congregation toward the old religion, and for the benefit of
those weak disciples he will preach what is called "a doc
trinal sermon ; " but before he gets through with it, seeing
it is infinitely cruel, he utters a cry of horror, and protests
with all the strength of his nature against the cruelty of the
creed. I imagine that he has always thought that he was
under great obligation to Plymouth Church, but the truth
is that that church depends upon him ; that church gets its
character from Mr. Beecher. He has done a vast deal to
ameliorate the condition of the average orthodox mind.
He excites the envy of the mediocre minister, and he excites
the hatred of the really orthodox, but he receives the appro
bation of good and generous men everywhere. For my
part, I have no quarrel with any religion that does not
threaten eternal punishment to very good people, and that
does not promise eternal reward to very bad people. If
orthodox Christianity be true, some of the best people I
know are going to hell, and some of the meanest I have ever
known are either in heaven or on the road. Of course, I

1 68 INTERVIEWS.

admit that there are thousands and millions of good Chris
tians — honest and noble people, but in my judgment, Mr.
Beecher is the greatest man in the world who now occupies
a pulpit. *****

Speaking of a man's living in Delaware, a young man,
some time ago, came up to me on the street, in an Eastern
city and asked for money. "What is your business," I
asked. "I am a waiter by profession." "Where do you
come from?" "Delaware." "Well, what was the matter —
did you drink, or cheat your employer, or were you idle?"
" No." " What was the trouble ? " " Well, the truth is, the
State is so small they don't need any waiters ; they all reach
for what they want."

Question. Do you not think there are some dangerous
tendencies in Liberalism?

Answer. I will first state this proposition: The credit
system in morals, as in business, breeds extravagance. The
cash system in morals, as well as in business, breeds
economy. We will suppose a community in which every
body is bound to sell on credit, and in which every creditor
can take the benefit of the bankrupt law every Saturday
night, and the constable pays the costs. In my judgment
that community would be extravagant as long as the mer
chants lasted. We will take another community in which
everybody has to pay cash, and in my judgment that com
munity will be a very economical one. Now, then, let us
apply this to morals. Christianity allows everybody to sin
on a credit, and allows a man who has lived, we will say
sixty-nine years, what Christians are pleased to call a
worldly life, an immoral life. They allow him on his death
bed, between the last dose of medicine and the last breath,
to be converted, and that man who has done nothing except
evil, becomes an angel. Here is another man who has lived
the same length of time, doing all the good he possibly
could do, but not meeting with what they are pleased to call

INTERVIEWS. 169

a change of heart ; " he goes to a world of pain. Now, niy
doctrine is that everybody must reap exactly what he sows,
other things being equal. If he acts badly he will not be
very happy ; if he acts well he will not be very sad. I
believe in the doctrine of consequences, and that every
man must stand the consequences of his own acts. It seems
to me that that fact will have a greater restraining influence
than the idea that you can, just before you leave this world,
shift your burden on to somebody else. I am a believer in
the restraining influences of liberty, because responsibility
goes hand in hand with freedom. I do not believe that the
gallows is the last step between earth and heaven. I do not
believe in the conversion and salvation of murderers while
their innocent victims are in hell. The church has taught
so long that he who acts virtuously carries a cross, and that
only sinners enjoy themselves, that it may be that for a
little while after men leave the church they may go to
extremes until they demonstrate for themselves that the
path of vice is the path of thorns, and that only along the
wayside of virtue grow the flowers of joy. The church has
depicted virtue as a sour, wrinkled termagant; an old
woman with nothing but skin and bones, and a temper
beyond description; and at the same time vice has been
painted in all the voluptuous outlines of a Greek statue.
The 'truth is exactly the other way. A thing is right
because it pays ; a thing is wrong because it does not ; and
when I use the word "pays," I mean in the highest and

noblest Sense. — The Daily News, Denver, Colorado, January 17, 1884.

FREE TRADE AND CHRISTIANITY.

Question. Who will be the Republican nominee for Presi
dent?

Answer. The correct answer to this question would make
so many men unhappy that I have concluded not to give it.

Question. Has not the Democracy injured itself irretrieva
bly by permitting the free trade element to rule it ?

I7O INTERVIEWS.

Answer. I do not think that the Democratic party weak
ened itself by electing Carlisle, Speaker. I think him an
excellent man, an exceedingly candid man, and one who will
do what he believes ought to be done. I have a very high
opinion of Mr. Carlisle. I do not suppose any party in this
country is really for free trade. I find that all writers upon
the subject, no matter which side they are on, are on that
side with certain exceptions. Adam Smith was in favor of
free trade, with a few exceptions, and those exceptions were
in matters where he thought it was for England's interests
not to have free trade. The same may be said of all writers.
So far as I can see, the free traders have all the arguments
and the protectionists all the facts. The free trade theories
are splendid, but they will not work ; the results are disas
trous. We find by actual experiment that it is better to
protect home industries. It was once said that protection
created nothing but monopoly ; the argument was that way ;
but the facts are not. Take, for instance, steel rails ; when
we bought them of England we paid one hundred and
twenty-five dollars a ton. I believe there was a tariff of
twenty-eight or twenty-nine dollars a ton, and yet in spite
of all the arguments going to show that protection would
simply increase prices in America, would simply enrich the
capitalist and impoverish the consumer, steel rails are now
produced, I believe, right here in Colorado for forty-two
dollars a ton.

After all,it is a question of labor; a question of prices that
shall be paid the laboring man ; a question of what the labor
ing man shall eat ; whether he shall eat meat or soup made
from the bones. Very few people take into consideration
the value of raw material and the value of labor. Take, for
instance, your ton of steel rails worth forty-two dollars.
The iron in the earth is not worth twenty-five cents. The
coal in the earth and the lime in the ledge together are not
worth twenty-five cents. Now, then, of the forty-twc dollars,

INTERVIEWS. 171

forty-one and a half is labor. There is not two dollar's worth
of raw material in a locomotive worth fifteen thousand dol
lars. By raw material I mean the material in the earth.
There is not in the works of a watch which will sell for
fifteen dollars, raw material of the value of one-half cent.
All the rest is labor. A ship, a man-of-war that costs one
million dollars — the raw material in the earth is not worth,
in my judgment, one thousand dollars. All the rest is labor.
If there is any way to protect American labor, I am in favor
of it. If the present tariff does not do it, then I am in favor
of changing to one that will. If the Democratic party takes
a stand for free trade or anything like it, they will need pro
tection ; they will need protection at the polls ; that is to say,
they will meet only with defeat and disaster.

Question. What should be done with the surplus revenue ?

Answer. My answer to that is, reduce internal revenue
taxation until the present surplus is exhausted, and then
endeavor so to arrange your tariff that you will not produce
more than you need. I think the easiest question to grapple
with on this earth is a surplus of money.

I do not believe in distributing it among the States. I do
not think there could be a better certificate of the prosperity
of our country than the fact that we are troubled with a sur
plus revenue; that we have the machinery for collecting
taxes in such perfect order, so ingeniously contrived, that it
cannot be stopped ; that it goes right on collecting money,
whether we want it or not ; and the wonderful thing about
it is that nobody complains. If nothing else can be done
with the surplus revenue, probably we had better pay some
of our debts. I would suggest, as a last resort, to pay a few
honest claims.

Question. Are you getting nearer to or farther away from
God, Christianity and the Bible ?

Answer. In the first place, as Mr. Locke so often re
marked, we will define our terms. If by the word "God"

172 INTERVIEWS.

is meant a person, a being, who existed before the creation
of the universe, and who controls all that is, except himself,
I do not believe in such a being ; but if by the word God is
meant all that is, that is to say, the universe, including every
atom and every star, then I am a believer. I suppose the
word that would nearest describe me is " Pantheist." I can
not believe that a being existed from eternity, and who
finally created this universe after having wasted an eternity
in idleness; but upon this subject I know just as little as
anybody ever did or ever will, and, in my judgment, just as
much. My intellectual horizon is somewhat limited, and, to
tell you the truth, this is the only world that I was ever in.
I am what might be called a representative of a rural dis
trict, and, as a matter of fact, I know very little about my
district. I believe it was Confucius who said: "How should
I know anything about another world when I know so little
of this?"

The greatest intellects of the world have endeavored to
find words to express their conception of God, of the first
cause, or of the science of being, but they have never suc
ceeded. I find in the old Confession of Faith, in the old
Catechism, for instance, this description : that God is a being
without body, parts or passions. I think it would trouble
anybody to find a better definition of nothing. That de
scribes a vacuum, that is to say, that describes the absence of
everything. I find that theology is a subject that only the
most ignorant are certain about, and that the more a man
thinks, the less he knows.

From the Bible God, I do not know that I am going far
ther and farther away. I have been about as far as a man
could get for many years. I do not believe in the God of
the Old Testament.

Now, as to the next branch of your question, Christianity.

The question arises, What is Christianity ? I have no ob
jection to the morality taught as a part of Christianity, no

INTERVIEWS. 173

objection to its charity, its forgiveness, its kindness ; no ob
jection to its hope for this world and another, not the slight
est, but all these things do not make Christianity. Mo
hammed taught certain doctrines that are good, but the good
in the teachings of Mohammed is not Mohammedism. When
I speak of Christianity I speak of that which is distinctly
Christian. For instance, the idea that the Infinite God was
born in Palestine, learned the carpenter's trade, disputed
with the parsons of his time, excited the wrath of the theo
logical bigots, and was finally crucified ; that afterward he
was raised from the dead, and that if anybody believes this
he will be saved and if he fails to believe it, he will be lost ; in
other words, that which is distinctly Christian in the
Christian system, is its supernaturalism, its miracles, its ab
surdity. Truth does not need to go into partnership with
the supernatural. What Christ said is worth the reason it
contains. If a man raises the dead and then says twice two
are five, that changes no rule in mathematics. If a multipli
cation table was divinely inspired, that does no good. The
question is, is it correct ? So I think that in the world of
morals, we must prove that a thing is right or wrong by ex
perience, by analogy, not by miracles. There is no fact in
physical science that can be supernaturally demonstrated.
Neither is there any fact in the moral world that could be
substantiated by miracles. Now, then, keeping in mind
that by Christianity I mean the supernatural in that system,
of course I am just as far away from it as I can ever get.
For the man Christ I have respect. He was an Infidel in
his day, and the ministers of his day cried out blasphemy,
as they have been crying ever since, against every person
who has suggested a new thought or shown the worthless-
ness of an old one.

Now, as to the third part of the question, the Bible.
People say that the Bible is inspired. Well what does in
spiration mean? Did God write it? No; but the men

174 INTERVIEWS.

who did write it were guided by the Holy Spirit. Very
well. Did they write exactly what the Holy Spirit wanted
them to write ? Well, religious people say, yes. At the
same time they admit that the gentlemen who were collect
ing, or taking down in shorthand what was said, had to use
their own words. Now, we all know that the same words
do not have the same meaning to all people. It is impos
sible to convey the same thoughts to all minds by the same
language, and it is for that reason that the Bible has pro
duced so many sects, not only disagreeing with each other,
but disagreeing among themselves.

We find, then, that it is utterly impossible for God (ad
mitting that there is one) to convey the same thoughts by
human language to all people. No two persons understand
the same language alike. A man's understanding depends
upon his experience, upon his capacity, upon the particular
bent of his mind — in fact, upon the countless influences that
have made him what he is. Everything in nature tells
everyone who sees it a story, but that story depends upon
the capacity of the one to whom it is told. The sea says
one thing to the ordinary man, and another thing to Shakes
peare. The stars have not the same language for all peo
ple. The consequence is that no book can tell the same
story to any two persons. The Jewish Scriptures are like
other books, written by different men in different ages of
the world, hundreds of years apart, filled with contradictions.
They embody, I presume, fairly enough, the wisdom and ig
norance, the reason and prejudice, of the times in which
they were written. They are worth the good that is in them,
and the question is whether we will take the good and throw
the bad away. There are good laws and bad laws. There
are wise and foolish sayings. There are gentle and cruel
passages, and you can find a text to suit almost any frame of
mind ; whether you wish to do an act of charity or murder a
neighbor's babe, you will find a passage that will exactly fit

INTERVIEWS. 175

the case. So that I can say that I am still for the reason
able, for the natural ; and am still opposed to the absurd and
supernatural.

Question. Is there any better or more ennobling belief than
Christianity ; if so, what is it ?

Answer. There are many good things, of course, in every
religion, or they would not have existed ; plenty of good
precepts in Christianity, but the thing that I object to more
than all others is the doctrine of eternal punishment, the
idea of hell for many and heaven for the few. Take from
Christianity the doctrine of eternal punishment and I have
no particular objection to what is generally preached. If
you will take that away, and all the supernatural connected
with it, I have no objection ; but that doctrine of eternal
punishment tends to harden the human heart. It has pro
duced more misery than all the other doctrines in the world.
It has shed more blood ; it has made more martyrs. It has
lighted the fires of persecution and kept the sword of cruelty
wet with heroic blood for at least a thousand years. There
is no crime that that doctrine has not produced. I think it
would be impossible for the imagination to conceive of a
worse religion than orthodox Christianity — utterly impos
sible ; a doctrine that divides this world, a doctrine that
divides families, a doctrine that teaches the son that he
can be happy, with his mother in perdition ; the husband
that he can be happy in heaven while his wife suffers
the agonies of hell. This doctrine is infinite injustice, and
tends to subvert all ideas of justice in the human heart. I
think it would be impossible to conceive of a doctrine
better calculated to make wild beasts of men than that ;
in fact, that doctrine was born of all the wild beast there is
in man. It was born of infinite revenge.

Think of preaching that you must believe that a certain
being was the son of God, no matter whether your reason is
convinced or not. Suppose one should meet, we will say on

176 INTERVIEWS.

London Bridge, a man clad in rags, ana ne should stop us
and say, " My friend, I wish to talk with you a moment. I am
the rightful King of Great Britain," and you should say to
him, " Well, my dinner is waiting ; I have no time to bother
about who the King of England is," and then he should
meet another and insist on his stopping while he pulled
out some papers to show that he was the rightful King of
England, and the other man should say, " I have got busi
ness here, my friend ; I am selling goods, and I have no
time to bother my head about who the King of England is.
No doubt you are the King of England, but you don't look
like him." And then suppose he stops another man, and
makes the same statement to him, and the other man should
laugh at him and say, " I don't want to hear anything on
this subject ; you are crazy : you ought to go to some in
sane asylum, or put something on your head to keep you
cool." And suppose, after all, it should turn out that the
man was King of England, and should afterward make his
claim good and be crowned in Westminster. What would
we think of that King if he should hunt up the gentlemen
that he met on London Bridge, and have their heads cut off
because they had no faith that he was the rightful heir ?
And what would we think of a God now who would damn
a man eighteen hundred years after the event, because
he did not believe that he was God at the time he was liv
ing in Jerusalem ; not only damn the fellows that he met,
and who did not believe in him, but gentlemen who lived
eighteen hundred years afterward, and who certainly could
have known nothing of the facts except from hearsay.

The best religion, after all, is common sense; a religion
for this world, one world at a time, a religion for to-day.
We want a religion that will deal in questions in which we
are interested. How are we to do away with crime ? How
are we to do away with pauperism ? How are we to do
away with the want and misery in every civilized country ?

INTERVIEWS.

177

England is a Christian nation, and yet about one in six in
the city of London dies in almshouses, asylums, prisons,
hospitals and jails. We, I suppose, are a civilized nation,
and yet all the penitentiaries are crammed ; there is want on
every hand, and my opinion is that we had better turn our
attention to this world.

Christianity is charitable ; Christianity spends a great deal
of money; but I am somewhat doubtful as to the good that
is accomplished. There ought to be some way to prevent
crime; not simply to punish it. There ought to be some
way to prevent pauperism, not simply to relieve temporarily
a pauper, and if the ministers and good people belonging to
the churches would spend their time investigating the affairs
of this world and let the New Jerusalem take care of itself, I
think it would be far better.

The church is guilty of one great contradiction. The
ministers are always talking about worldly people, and yet,
were it not for worldly people, who would pay the salary ?
How could the church live a minute unless somebody at
tended to the affairs of this world? The best religion, in
my judgment, is common sense going along hand in hand
with kindness, and not troubling ourselves about another
world until we get there. I am willing for one, to wait and
see what kind of a country it will be.

Question. Does the question of the inspiration of the
Scriptures affect the beauty and benefits of Christianity here
and hereafter?

Answer. A belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures has
done, in my judgment, great harm. The Bible has been the
breastwork for nearly everything wrong. The defenders of
slavery relied on the Bible. The Bible was the real auction
block on which every negro stood when he was sold. I
never knew a minister to preach in favor of slavery that
did not take his text from the Bible. The Bible teaches
persecution for opinion's sake. The Bible — that is the Old

178 INTERVIEWS.

Testament — upholds polygamy, and just to the extent that
men, through the Bible, have believed that slavery, religious
persecution, wars of extermination and polygamy were
taught by God, just to that extent the Bible has done great
harm. The idea of inspiration enslaves the human mind
and debauches the human heart.

Question. Is not Christianity and the belief in God a check
upon mankind in general and thus a good thing in itself?

Answer. This, again, brings up the question of what you
mean by Christianity, but taking it for granted that you
mean by Christianity the church, then I answer, when the
church had almost absolute authority, then the world was
the worst.

Now, as to the other part of the question, " Is not a belief
in God a check upon mankind in general ? " That is owing
to what kind of God the man believes in. When mankind
believed in the God of the Old Testament, I think that be
lief was a bad thing ; the tendency was bad. I think that
John Calvin patterned after Jehovah as nearly as his health
and strength would permit. Man makes God in his own
image, and bad men are not apt to have a very good God
if they make him. I believe it is far better to have a real
belief in goodness, in kindness, in honesty and in mankind
than in any supernatural being whatever. I do not suppose
it would do any harm for a man to believe in a real good
God, a God without revenge, a God that was not very par
ticular in having a man believe a doctrine whether he could
understand it or not. I do not believe that a belief of that
kind would do any particular harm.

There is a vast difference between the God of John Calvin
and the God of Henry Ward Beecher, and a great difference
between the God of Cardinal Pedro Gonzales de Mendoza
and the God of Theodore Parker.

Question. Well, Colonel, is the world growing better or
worse ?

INTERVIEWS. 179

Answer. I think better in some respects, and worse in
others; but on the whole, better. I think that while
events, like the pendulum of a clock, go backward and for
ward, man, like the hands, goes forward. I think there is
more reason and less religion, more charity and less creed.
I think the church is improving. Ministers are ashamed
to preach the old doctrines with the old fervor. There was
a time when the pulpit controlled the pews. It is so no
longer. The pews know what they want, and if the minister
does not furnish it they discharge him and employ another.
He is no longer an autocrat ; he must bring to the market
what his customers are willing to buy.

Question. What are you going to do to be saved?

Answer. Well, I think I am safe anyway. I suppose I
have a right to rely on what Matthew says, that if I will
forgive others God will forgive me. I suppose if there is
another world I shall be treated very much as I treat others.
I never expect to find perfect bliss anywhere; maybe I
should tire of it if I should. What I have endeavored to
do has been to put out the fires of an ignorant and cruel
hell ; to do what I could to destroy that dogma ; to destroy
that doctrine that makes the cradle as terrible as the coffin.

— The Denver Republican, Denver, Colorado, January 17, 1884.

THE OATH QUESTION.

Question. I suppose that your attention has been called
to the excitement in England over the oath question, and
you have probably wondered that so much should have
been made of so little?

Answer. Yes ; I have read a few articles upon the subject,
including one by Cardinal Newman. It is wonderful that
so many people imagine that there is something miracu
lous in the oath. They seem to regard it as a kind of
verbal fetich — a charm, an "open sesame" to be pro
nounced at the door of truth, a spell, a kind of moral

I8O INTERVIEWS.

thumbscrew, by means of which falsehood itself is com
pelled to turn informer.

The oath has outlived its brother, "the wager of battle."
Both were born of the idea that God would interfere for the
right and for the truth. Trial by fire and by water had the
same origin. It was once believed that the man in the
wrong could not kill the man in the right ; but, experience
having shown that he usually did, the belief gradually fell
into disrepute. So it was once thought that a perjurer
could not swallow a piece of sacramental bread ; but, the fear
that made the swallowing difficult having passed away, the
appeal to the corsned was abolished. It was found that a
brazen or a desperate man could eat himself out of the
greatest difficulty with perfect ease, satisfying the law and
his own hunger at the same time.

The oath is a relic of barbarous theology, of the belief
that a personal God interferes in the affairs of men ; that
some God protects innocence and guards the right. The
experience of the world has sadly demonstrated the folly
of that belief. The testimony of a witness ought to be
believed, not because it is given under the solemnities of an
oath, but because it is reasonable. If unreasonable it ought
to be thrown aside. The question ought not to be, " Has
this been sworn to?" but, "Is this true?" The moment
evidence is tested by the standard of reason, the oath
becomes a useless ceremony. Let the man who gives false
evidence be punished as the lawmaking power may pre
scribe. He should be punished because he commits a crime
against society, and he should be punished in this world.
All honest men will tell the truth if they can ; therefore,
oaths will have no effect upon them. Dishonest men will
not tell the truth unless the truth happens to suit their pur
pose ; therefore, oaths will have no effect upon them. We
punish them, not for swearing to a lie, but for telling it ;
and we can make the punishment for telling the falsehood

INTERVIEWS. l8l

just as severe as we wish. If they are to be punished in
another world, the probability is that the punishment there
will be for having told the falsehood here. After all, a
lie is made no worse by an oath, and the truth is made no
better.

Question. You object then to the oath. Is your objection
based on any religious grounds, or on any prejudice
against the ceremony because of its religious origin ; or
what is your objection?

Answer. I care nothing about the origin of the ceremony.
The objection to the oath is this: It furnishes a falsehood
with a letter of credit. It supplies the wolf with sheep's
clothing and covers the hands of Jacob with hair. It blows
out the light, and in the darkness Leah is taken for
Rachel. It puts upon each witness a kind of theological
gown. This gown hides the moral rags of the depraved
wretch as well as the virtues of the honest man. The oath
is a mask that falsehood puts on, and for a moment is
mistaken for truth. It gives to dishonesty the advantage
of solemnity. The tendency of the oath is to put all tes
timony on an equality. The obscure rascal and the man
of sterling character both " swear," and jurors who attri
bute a miraculous quality to the oath, forget the real
difference in the men, and give about the same weight to
the evidence of each, because both were " sworn." A
scoundrel is delighted with the opportunity of going
through a ceremony that gives importance and dignity to
his story, that clothes him for the moment with respecta
bility, loans him the appearance of conscience, and gives
the ring of true coin to the base metal. To him the oath
is a shield. He is in partnership, for a moment, with God,
and people who have no confidence in the witness credit
the firm.

Question. Of course you know the religionists insist that
people are more likely to tell the truth when "sworn," and

1 82 INTERVIEWS.

that to take away the oath is to destroy the foundation of
testimony ?

Answer. If the use of the oath is defended on the ground
that religious people need a stimulus to tell the truth,
then I am compelled to say that religious people have been
so badly educated that they mistake the nature of the
crime.

They should be taught that to defeat justice by
falsehood is the real offence. Besides, fear is not the
natural foundation of virtue. Even with religious people
fear cannot always last. Ananias and Sapphira have been
dead so long, and since their time so many people have
sworn falsely without affecting their health that the fear of
sudden divine vengeance no longer pales the cheek of the
perjurer. If the vengeance is not sudden, then, according
to the church, the criminal will have plenty of time to
repent ; so that the oath no longer affects even the fearful.
Would it not be better for the church to teach that telling
the falsehood is the real crime, and that taking the oath
neither adds to nor takes from its enormity ? Would it not
be better to teach that he who does wrong must suffer the
consequences, whether God forgives him or not ?

He who tries to injure another may or may not succeed,
but he cannot by any possibility fail to injure himself.
Men should be taught that there is no difference between
truth-telling and truth-swearing. Nothing is more vicious
than the idea that any ceremony or form of words — hand-
lifting or book-kissing — can add, even in the slightest de
gree, to the perpetual obligation every human being is
under to speak the truth.

The truth, plainly told, naturally commends itself to the
intelligent. Every fact is a genuine link in the infinite
chain, and will agree perfectly with every other fact. A
fact asks to be inspected, asks to be understood. It needs
no oath, no ceremony, no supernatural aid. It is independ-

INTERVIEWS. 183

ent of all the gods. A falsehood goes in partnership with
theology, and depends on the partner for success.

To show how little influence for good has been attributed
to the oath, it is only necessary to say that for centuries, in
the Christian world, no person was allowed to testify who
had the slightest pecuniary interest in the result of a suit.

The expectation of a farthing in this world was supposed
to outweigh the fear of God's wrath in the next. All the
pangs, pains, and penalties of perdition were considered as
nothing when compared with the pounds, shillings and
pence in this world.

Question. You know that in nearly all deliberative bodies
— in parliaments and congresses — an oath or an affirmation
is required to support what is called the Constitution; and
that all officers are required to swear or affirm that they
will discharge their duties; do these oaths and affirmations,
in your judgment, do any good?

Answer. Men have sought to make nations and institu
tions immortal by oaths, Subjects have sworn to obey
kings, and kings have sworn to protect subjects, and yet the
subjects have sometimes beheaded a king ; and the king has
often plundered the subjects. The oaths enabled them to
deceive each other. Every absurdity in religion, and all
tyrannical institutions, have been patched, buttressed, and
reinforced by oaths ; and yet the history of the world shows
the utter futility of putting in the coffin of an oath the
political and religious aspirations of the race.

Revolutions and reformations care little for " So help me
God." Oaths have riveted shackles and sanctified abuses.
People swear to support a constitution, and they will keep
the oath so long as the constitution supports them. In 1776
the colonists cared nothing for the fact that they had sworn
to support the British crown. All the oaths to defend the
Constitution of the United States did not prevent the Civil
war. We have at last learned that States may be kept

184 INTERVIEWS.

together for a little time, by force ; permanently only by
mutual interests. We have found that the Delilah of super
stition cannot bind with oaths the secular Samson.

Why should a member of Parliament or of Congress
swear to maintain the Constitution ? If he is a dishonest
man, the oath will have no effect; if he is an honest
patriot, it will have no effect. In both cases it is equally
useless. If a member fails to support the Constitution the
probability is that his constituents will treat him as he does
the Constitution. In this country, after all the members of
Congress have sworn or affirmed to defend the Constitution,
each political party charges the other with a deliberate en
deavor to destroy that " sacred instrument." Possibly the
political oath was invented to prevent the free and natural
development of a nation. Kings and nobles and priests
wished to retain the property they had filched and clutched,
and for that purpose they compelled the real owners to
swear that they would support and defend the law under
color of which the theft and robbery had been accomplished.

So, in the church, creeds have been protected by oaths.
Priests and laymen solemnly swore that they would, under
no circumstances, resort to reason ; that they would over
come facts by faith, and strike down demonstrations with
the " sword of the spirit." Professors of the theological
seminary at Andover, Massachusetts, swear to defend cer
tain dogmas and to attack others. They swear sacredly to
keep and guard the ignorance they have. With them, phi
losophy leads to perjury, and reason is the road to crime.
While theological professors are not likely to make an in
tellectual discovery, still it is unwise, by taking an oath, to
render that certain which was only improbable.

If all witnesses sworn to tell the truth, did so, if all
members of Parliament and of Congress, in taking the oath,
became intelligent, patriotic, and honest, I should be in
favor of retaining the ceremony ; but we find that men who

INTERVIEWS. 185

have taken the same oath advocate opposite ideas, and en
tertain different opinions, as to the meaning of constitu
tions and laws. The oath adds nothing to their intelli
gence ; does not even tend to increase their patriotism,
and certainly does not make the dishonest honest.

Question. Are not persons allowed to testify in the United
States whether they believe in future rewards and punish
ments or not ?

Answer. In this country, in most of the States, witnesses
are allowed to testify whether they believe in perdition and
paradise or not. In some States they are allowed to testify
even if they deny the existence of God . We have found
that religious belief does not compel people to tell the
truth, and that an utter denial of every Christian creed
does not even tend to make them dishonest. You see, a
religious belief does not affect the senses. Justice should
not shut any door that leads to truth. No one will pretend
that, because you do not not believe in hell, your sight is
impaired, or your hearing dulled, or your memory rendered
less retentive. A witness in a court is called upon to tell
what he has seen, what he has heard, what he remembers,
not what he believes about gods and devils and hells and
heavens. A witness substantiates not a faith, but a fact.
In order to ascertain whether a witness will tell the truth,
you might with equal propriety examine him as to his
ideas about music, painting or architecture, as theology. A
man may have no ear for music, and yet remember what
he hears. He may care nothing about painting, and yet be
able to tell what he sees. So he may deny every creed, and
yet be able to tell the facts as he remembers them.

Thomas Jefferson was wise enough so to frame the Con
stitution of Virginia that no person could be deprived of
any civil right on account of his religious or irreligious be
lief. Through the influence of men like Paine, Franklin
and Jefferson, it was provided in the Federal Constitution

1 86 INTERVIEWS.

that officers elected under its authority could swear or af
firm. This was the natural result of the separation of
church and state.

Question. I see that your Presidents and Governors issue
their proclamations calling on the people to assemble in
their churches and offer thanks to God. How does this
happen in a Government where church and state are not
united ?

Answer. Jefferson, when President, refused to issue what
is known as the " Thanksgiving Proclamation," on the
ground that the Federal Government had no right to inter
fere in religious matters ; that the people owed no religious
duties to the Government ; that the Government derived its
powers, not from priests or gods, but from the people, and
was responsible alone to the source of its power. The truth
is, the framers of our Constitution intended that the
Government should be secular in the broadest and best
sense ; and yet there are thousands and thousands of re
ligious people in this country who are greatly scandalized
because there is no recognition of God in the Federal Con
stitution ; and for several years a great many ministers
have been endeavoring to have the Constitution amended
so as to recognize the existence of God and the divinity of
Christ. A man by the name of Pollock was once superin
tendent of the mint at Philadelphia. He was almost insane
about having God in the Constitution. Failing in that, he
got the inscription on our money, " In God we Trust." As
our silver dollar is now, in fact, worth only eighty-five
cents, it is claimed that the inscription means that we
trust in God for the other fifteen cents.

There is a constant effort on the part of many Christians
to have their religion in some way recognized by law.
Proclamations are now issued calling upon the people to
give thanks, and directing attention to the fact that, while
God bas scourged or neglected other nations, he has been

INTERVIEWS. 187

remarkably attentive to the wants and wishes of the United
States. Governors of States issue these documents written
in a tone of pious insincerity. The year may or may not
have been prosperous, yet the degree of thankfulness called
for is always precisely the same.

A few years ago the Governor of Iowa issued an exceed
ingly rhetorical proclamation, in which the people were
requested to thank God for the unparalleled blessings he had
showered upon them. A private citizen, fearing that the
Lord might be misled by official correspondence, issued his
proclamation, in which he recounted with great particu
larity the hardships of the preceding year. He insisted
that the weather had been of the poorest quality ; that the
crops had generally failed ; that the spring came late, and
the frost early ; that the people were in debt ; that the farms
were mortgaged ; that the merchants were bankrupt ; and
that everything was in the worst possible condition. He
concluded by sincerely hoping that the Lord would pay no
attention to the proclamation of the Governor, but would,
if he had any doubt on the subject, come down and exam
ine the State for himself.

These proclamations have always appeared to me ab
surdly egotistical. Why should God treat us any better
than he does the rest of his children ? Why should he send
pestilence and famine to China, and health and plenty to
us ? Why give us corn, and Egypt cholera ? All these
proclamations grow out of egotism and selfishness, of ig
norance and superstition, and are based upon the idea that
God is a capricious monster ; that he loves flattery ; that
he can be coaxed and cajoled.

The conclusion of the whole matter with me is this : For
truth in courts we must depend upon the trained intelli
gence of judges, the right of cross-examination, the hon
esty and common sense of jurors, and upon an enlight
ened tmWic opinion. As for members of Congress, we will

1 88 INTERVIEWS.

trust to the wisdom and patriotism, not only of the members,
but of their constituents. In religion we will give to all
the luxury of absolute liberty.

The alchemist did not succeed in finding any stone the
touch of which transmuted baser things to gold ; and priests
have not invented yet an oath with power to force from
falsehood's desperate lips the pearl of truth. — Secular Review,

London, England, 1884.

WENDELL PHILLIPS, FITZ JOHN PORTER
AND BISMARCK.

Question. Are you seeking to quit public lecturing on
religious questions ?

Answer. As long as I live I expect now and then to say
my say against the religious bigotry and cruelty of the
world. As long as the smallest coal is red in hell I am
going to keep on. I never had the slightest idea of retir
ing. I expect the church to do the retiring.

Question. What do you think of Wendell Phillips as an
orator ?

Answer. He was a very great orator — one of the greatest
that the world has produced. He rendered immense service
to the cause of freedom. He was in the old days the
thunderbolt that pierced the shield of the Constitution.
One of the bravest soldiers that ever fought for human
rights was Wendell Phillips.

Question. What do you think of the action of Congress on
Fitz John Porter?

Answer. I think Congress did right. I think they should
have taken this action long before. There was a question
of his guilt, and he should have been given the benefit of a
doubt. They say he could have defeated Longstreet.
There are some people, you know, who would have it that
an army could be whipped by a good general with six
mules and a blunderbuss. But we do not regard those

INTERVIEWS. 189

people. They know no more about it than a lady who
talked to me about Porter's case. She argued the question
of Porter's guilt for half an hour. I showed her where she
was all wrong. When she found she was beaten she took
refuge with " Oh, well, anyhow he had no genius." Well,
if every man is to be shot who has no genius, I want to go
into the coffin business.

Question. What, in your judgment, is necessary to be done
to insure Republican success this fall ?

Answer. It is only necessary for the Republican party to
stand by its principles. We must be in favor of protecting
American labor not only, but of protecting American
capital, and we must be in favor of civil rights, and must
advocate the doctrine that the Federal Government must
protect all citizens. I am in favor of a tariff, not simply to
raise a revenue — that I regard as incidental. The Demo
crats regard protection as incidental. The two principles
should be, protection to American industry and protection
to American citizens. So that, after all, there is but one
issue — protection. As a matter of fact, that is all a gov
ernment is for — to protect. The Republican party is
stronger to-day than it was four years ago. The Republi
can party stands for the progressive ideas of the American
people. It has been said that the administration will control
the Southern delegates. I do not believe it. This admin
istration has not been friendly to the Southern Republicans,
and my opinion is there will be as much division in the
Southern as in the Northern States. I believe Elaine will
be a candidate, and I do not believe the Prohibitionists will
put a ticket in the field, because they have no hope of
success.

Question. What do you think generally of the revival of
the bloody shirt? Do you think the investigations of the
Republicans of the Danville and Copiah massacres will
benefit them ?

IQO INTERVIEWS.

Answer. Well, I am in favor of the revival of that question
just as often as a citizen of the Republic is murdered on
account of his politics. If the South is sick of that question,
let it stop persecuting men because they are Republicans.
I do not believe, however, in simply investigating the ques
tion and then stopping after the guilty ones are found. I
believe in indicting them, trying them, and convicting them.
If the Government can do nothing except investigate, we
might as well stop, and admit that we have no government.
Thousands of people think that it is almost vulgar to take
the part of the poor colored people in the South. Whose
part should you take if not that of the weak? The strong
do not need you. And I can tell the Southern people now,
that as long as they persecute for opinion's sake they will
never touch the reins of political power in this country.

Question. How do you regard the action of Bismarck in
returning the Lasker resolutions. Was it the result of his
hatred of the Jews?

Answer. Bismarck opposed a bill to do away with the
disabilities of the Jews on the ground that Prussia is a
Christian nation, founded for the purpose of spreading the
gospel of Jesus Christ. I presume that it was his hatred of
the Jews that caused him to return the resolutions. Bis
marck should have lived several centuries ago. He belongs
to the Dark Ages. He is a believer in the sword and the
bayonet — in brute force. He was loved by Germany simply
because he humiliated France. Germany gave her liberty
for revenge. It is only necessary to compare Bismarck
with Gambetta to see what a failure he really is. Germany
was victorious and took from France the earnings of
centuries ; and yet Germany is to-day the least prosperous
nation in Europe. France was prostrate, trampled into the
earth, robbed, and yet, guided by Gambetta, is to-day the
most prosperous nation in Europe. This shows the differ
ence between brute force and brain. — The Times, Chicago, Illinois,

February 21, 1884.

GENERAL SUBJECTS.

Question. Do you enjoy lecturing?

Answer. Of course I enjoy lecturing. It is a great
pleasure to drive the fiend of fear out of the hearts of men
women and children. It is a positive joy to put out the fires
of hell.

Qiiestion. Where do you meet with the bitterest opposi
tion?

Answer. I meet with the bitterest opposition where the
people are the most ignorant, where there is the least
thought, where there are the fewest books. The old theology
is becoming laughable. Very few ministers have the
impudence to preach in the old way. They give new
meanings to old words. They subscribe to the same creed,
but preach exactly the other way. The clergy are ashamed
to admit that they are orthodox, and they ought to be.

Question. Do liberal books, such as the works of Paine
and Infidel scientists sell well ?

Answer. Yes, they are about the only books on serious
subjects that do sell well. The works of Darwin, Buckle,
Draper, Haeckel, Tyndall, Humboldt and hundreds of others,
are read by intelligent people the world over. Works of a
religious character die on the shelves. The people want
facts. They want to know about this world, about all forms
of life. They want the mysteries of every day solved.
They want honest thoughts about sensible questions. They
are tired of the follies of faith and the falsehoods of super
stition. They want a heaven here. In a few years the old
theological books will be sold to make paper on which to
print the discoveries of science.

Question. In what section of the country do you find the
most liberality ?

Answer. I find great freedom of thought in Boston, New

(191)

IQ2 INTERVIEWS.

York, Chicago, San Francisco, in fact, all over what we call
the North. The West of course is liberal. The truth is,
that all the intelligent 'part of the country is liberal. The
railroad, the telegraph, the daily paper, electric light, the
telephone, and freedom of thought belong together.

Question. Is is true that you were once threatened with a
criminal prosecution for libel on religion ?

Answer. Yes, in Delaware. Chief Justice Comegys in
structed the grand jury to indict me for blasphemy. I have
taken my revenge on the State by leaving it in ignorance.
Delaware is several centuries behind the times. It is as
bigoted as it is small. Compare Kansas City with Wilming
ton and you will see the difference between liberalism and
orthodoxy.

Question. This is Washington's birthday. What do you
think of General Washington ?

Answer. I suppose that Washington was what was called
religious. He was not very strict in his conduct. He tried
to have church and state united in Virginia and was
defeated by Jefferson. It should make no difference with
us whether Washington was religious or not. Jefferson was
by far the greater man. In intellect there was no compar
ison between Washington and Franklin. I do not prove
the correctness of my ideas by names of dead people. I
depend upon reason instead of gravestones. One fact is
worth a cemetery full of distinguished corpses. We ask
not for the belief of somebody, but for evidence, for facts.
The church is a beggar at the door of respectability. The
moment a man becomes famous, the church asks him for a
certificate that the Bible is true. It passes its hat before
generals and presidents, and kings while they are alive.
It says nothing about thinkers and real philosophers while
they live, except to slander them, but the moment they are
dead it seeks among their words for a crumb of comfort.

Question. Will Liberalism ever organize in America?

INTERVIEWS. 193

Answer. I hope not. Organization means creed, and
creed means petrifaction and tyranny. I believe in individ
uality. I will not join any society except an anti-society
society.

Question. Do you consider the religion of Bhagavat
Purana of the East as good as the Christian?

Answer. It is far more poetic. It has greater variety and
shows vastly more thought. Like the Hebrew, it is
poisoned with superstition, but it has more beauty.
Nothing can be more barren than the theology of the Jews
and Christians. One lonely God, a heaven filled with
thoughtless angels, a hell with unfortunate souls. Nothing
can be more desolate. The Greek mythology is infinitely
better.

Question. Do you think that the marriage institution is
held in less respect by Infidels than by Christians ?

Answer. No; there never was a time when marriage
was more believed in than now. Never were wives treated
better and loved more ; never were children happier than
now. It is the ambition of the average American to have
a good and happy home. The fireside was never more
popular than now.

Question. What do you think of Beecher ?

Answer. He is a great man, but the habit of his mind
and the bent of his early education oppose his heart. He is
growing and has been growing every day for many years.
He has given up the idea of eternal punishment, and that
of necessity destroys it all. The Christian religion is
founded upon hell. When the foundation crumbles the
fabric falls. Beecher was to have answered my article in
the North American Review, but when it appeared and he
saw it, he agreed with so much of it that he concluded that

an answer WOUld be USeleSS. — The Times, Kansas City, Missouri, Feb
ruary 23, 1884.

REPLY TO KANSAS CITY CLERGY.

Question. Will you take any notice of Mr. Magrath's
challenge ?

Answer. I do not think it worth while to discuss with
Mr. Magrath. I do not say this in disparagement of his
ability, as I do not know the gentleman. He may be one
of the greatest of men. I think, however, that Mr. Magrath
might better answer what I have already said. If he suc
ceeds in that, then I will meet him in public discussion.
Of course he is an eminent theologian or he would not
think of discussing these questions with anybody. I have
never heard of him, but for all that he may be the most
intelligent of men.

Question. How have the recently expressed opinions of
our local clergy impressed you ?

Answer. I suppose you refer to the preachers who have
given their opinion of me. In the first place I am obliged
to them for acting as my agents. I think Mr. Hogan has
been imposed upon. Tacitus is a poor witness — about like
Josephus. I say again that we have not a word about
Christ written by any human being who lived in the time
of Christ — not a solitary word, and Mr. Hogan ought to
know it.

The Rev. Mr. Mathews is mistaken. If the Bible proves
anything, it proves that the world was made in six days
and that Adam and Eve were built on Saturday. The Bible
gives the age of Adam when he died, and then gives the
ages of others down to the flood, and then from that time
at least to the return from the captivity. If the genealogy
of the Bible is true it is about six thousand years since
Adam was made, and the world is only five days older than

(194)

INTERVIEWS. 195

Adam. It is nonsense to say the days were long periods of
time. If that is so, away goes the idea of Sunday. The
only reason for keeping Sunday given in the Bible is that
God made the world in six days and rested on the seventh.
Mr. Mathews is not candid. He knows that he cannot answer
the arguments I have urged against the Bible. He knows
that the ancient Jews were barbarians, and that the Old
Testament is a barbarous book. He knows that it upholds
slavery and polygamy, and he probably feels ashamed of
what he is compelled to preach.

Mr. Jardine takes a very cheerful view of the subject.
He expects the light to dawn on the unbelievers. He speaks
as though he were the superior of all Infidels. He claims
to be a student of the evidences of Christianity. There are
no evidences, consequently Mr. Jardine is a student of
nothing. It is amazing how dignified some people can get
on a small capital.

Mr. Haley has sense enough to tell the ministers not to
attempt to answer me. That is good advice. The ministers
had better keep still. It is the safer way. If they try to
answer what I say, the " sheep " will see how foolish the
" shepherds " are. The best way is for them to say, " that
has been answered."

Mr. Wells agrees with Mr. Haley. He, too, thinks that
silence is the best weapon. I agree with him. Let the
clergy keep still ; that is the best way. It is better to say
nothing than to talk absurdity. I am delighted to think
that at last the ministers have concluded that they had
better not answer Infidels.

Mr. Woods is fearful only for the young. He is afraid
that I will hurt the children. He thinks that the mother
ought to stoop over the cradle and in the ears of the babe
shout, Hell ! So he thinks in all probability that the same
word ought to be repeated at the grave as a consolation to
mourners.

196 INTERVIEWS.

I am glad that Mr. Mann thinks that I am doing neithef
good nor harm. This gives me great hope. If I do no
harm, certainly I ought not to be eternally damned. It is
very consoling to have an orthodox minister solemnly as
sert that I am doing no harm. I wish I could say as much
for him.

The truth is, all these ministers have kept back their real
thoughts. They do not tell their doubts — they know that
orthodoxy is doomed — they know that the old doctrine ex
cites laughter and scorn. They know that the fires of hell
are dying out ; that the Bible is ceasing to be an authority ;
and that the pulpit is growing feebler and feebler every
day. Poor parsons !

Question. Would the Catholicism of General Sherman's
family affect his chances for the presidency ?

Answer. I do not think the religion of the family should
have any weight one way or the other. It would make no
difference with me; although I hate Catholicism with all my
heart, I do not hate Catholics. Some people might be so
prejudiced that they would not vote for a man whose wife
belongs to the Catholic Church ; but such people are too
narrow to be consulted. General Sherman says that he
wants no office. In that he shows his good sense. He is a
great man and a great soldier. He has won laurels enough
for one brow. He has the respect and admiration of the
nation, and does not need the presidency to finish his
career. He wishes to enjoy the honors he has won and the
rest he deserves.

Question. What is your opinion of Matthew Arnold ?

Answer. He is a man of talent, well educated, a little
fussy, somewhat sentimental, but he is not a genius. He is
not creative. He is a critic — not an originator. He will

not Compare with EmerSOn, — The Journal, Kansas City, Missouri, Feb
ruary 23, 1884.

SWEARING AND AFFIRMING.

Question. What is the difference in the parliamentary
oath of this country which saves us from such a squabble
as they have had in England over the Bradlaugh case ?

Answer. Our Constitution provides that a member of
Congress may swear or affirm. The consequence is that
we can have no such controversy as they have had in En
gland. The framers of our Constitution wished forever to
divorce church and state. They knew that it made no
possible difference whether a man swore or affirmed, or
whether he swore and affirmed to support the Constitution.
All the Federal officers who went into the Rebellion had
sworn or affirmed to support the Constitution. All that
did no good. The entire oath business is a mistake. I
think it would be a thousand times better to abolish all
oaths in courts of justice. The oath allows a rascal to put
on the garments of solemnity, the mask of piety, while he
tells a lie. In other words, the oath allows the villain to
give falsehood the appearance of truth. I think it would
be far better to let each witness tell his story and leave his
evidence to the intelligence of the jury and judge. The
trouble about the oath is that its tendency is to put all wit
nesses on an equality ; the jury says, " Why, he swore to
it." Now, if the oath were abolished, the jury would judge
all testimony according to the witness, and then the evi
dence of one man of good reputation would outweigh the lies
of thousands of nobodies.

It was at one time believed that there was something
miraculous in the oath, that it was a kind of thumbscrew
that would torture the truth out of a rascal, and at one
time they believed that if a man swore falsely he might be
struck by lightning or paralyzed. But so many people

(197)

198 INTERVIEWS.

have sworn to lies without having their health injured that
the old superstition has very little weight with the average
witness. I think it would be far better to let every man
tell his story ; let him be cross-examined, let the jury find
out as much as they can of his character, of his standing
among his neighbors — then weigh his testimony in the
scale of reason. The oath is born of superstition, and
everything born of superstition is bad. The oath gives
the lie currency ; it gives it for the moment the ring of
true metal, and the ordinary average juror is imposed upon
and justice in many instances defeated. Nothing can be
more absurd than the swearing of a man to support the
Constitution. Let him do what he likes. If he does not
support the Constitution, the probability is that his con
stituents will refuse to support him. Every man who
swears to support the Constitution swears to support it as
he understands it, and no two understand it exactly alike.
Now, if the oath brightened a man's intellect or added to his
information or increased his patriotism or gave him a little
more honesty, it would be a good thing — but it doesn't. And
as a consequence it is a very useless and absurd proceeding.
Nothing amuses me more in a court than to see one calf
kissing the tanned skin of another. — The Courier, Buffalo, New

York, May 19, 1884.

REPLY TO A BUFFALO CRITIC.

Question. What have you to say in reply to the letter in
to-day's Times signed R. H. S. ?

Answer. I find that I am accused of "four flagrant
wrongs," and while I am not as yet suffering from the
qualms of conscience, nor do I feel called upon to confess
and be forgiven, yet I have something to say in self-defence.

As to the first objection made by your correspondent,
namely, that my doctrine deprives people of the hope that
after this life is ended they will meet their fathers, mothers,

INTERVIEWS. 199

sisters and brothers, long since passed away, In the land
beyond the grave, and there enjoy their company forever,
I have this to say : If Christianity is true we are not quite
certain of meeting our relatives and friends where we can
enjoy their company forever. If Christianity is true most
of our friends will be in hell. The ones I love best and
whose memory I cherish will certainly be among the lost.
The trouble about Christianity is that it is infinitely selfish.
Each man thinks that if he can save his own little, shriveled,
microscopic soul, that is enough. No matter what becomes
of the rest. Christianity has no consolation for a generous
man. I do not wish to go to heaven if the ones who have
given me joy are to be lost. I would much rather go with
them. The only thing that makes life endurable in this
world is human love, and yet, according to Christianity,
that is the very thing we are not to have in the other world.
We are to be so taken up with Jesus and the angels, that we
shall care nothing about our brothers and sisters that have
been damned. We shall be so carried away with the music
of the harp that we shall not even hear the wail of father
or mother. Such a religion is a disgrace to human nature.

As to the second objection, — that society cannot be held
together in peace and good order without hell and a belief
in eternal torment, I would ask why an infinitely wise and
good God should make people of so poor and mean a char
acter that society cannot be held together without scaring
them. Is it possible that God has so made the world that
the threat of eternal punishment is necessary for the preser
vation of society ?

The writer of the letter also says that it is necessary to
believe that if a man commits murder here he is destined
to be punished in hell for the offence. This is Christianity.
Yet nearly every murderer goes directly from the
gallows to God. Nearly every murderer takes it upon
himself to lecture the assembled multitude who have

2OO INTERVIEWS.

gathered to see him hanged, and invite them to meet him in
heaven. When the rope is about his neck he feels the
wings growing. That is the trouble with the Christian
doctrine. Every murderer is told he may repent and go to
heaven, and have the happiness of seeing his victim in hell.
Should heaven at any time become dull, the vein of pleasure
can be re-thrilled by the sight of his victim wriggling on the
gridiron of God's justice. Really, Christianity leads men to
sin on credit. It sells rascality on time and tells all the
devils they can have the benefit of the gospel bankrupt act.
The next point in the letter is that I do not preach for the
benefit of mankind, but for the money which is the price of
blood. Of course it makes no difference whether I preach
for money or not. That is to say, it makes no difference to
the preached. The arguments I advance are either good or
bad. If they are bad they can easily be answered by argu
ment. If they are not they cannot be answered by person
alities or by ascribing to me selfish motives. It is not a
personal matter. It is a matter of logic, of sense — not a
matter of slander, vituperation or hatred. The writer of the
letter, R. H. S., may be an exceedingly good person, yet
that will add no weight to his or her argument. He or she
may be a very bad person, but that would not weaken the logic
of the letter, if it had any logic to begin with. It is not for
me to say what my motives are in what I do or say ; it must
be left to the judgment of mankind. I presume I am about
as bad as most folks, and as good as some, but my goodness
or badness has nothing to do with the question. I may
have committed every crime in the world, yet that does not
make the story of the flood reasonable, nor does it even tend
to show that the three gentlemen in the furnace were not
scorched. I may be the best man in the world, yet that does
not go to prove that Jonah was swallowed by the whale.
Let me say right here that if there is another world I believe
that every soul who finds the way to that shore will have an

INTERVIEWS. 201

everlasting opportunity to do right — of reforming. My
objection to Christianity is that it is infinitely cruel, in
finitely selfish, and I might add infinitely absurd. I deprive
no one of any hope unless you call the expectation of
eternal pain a hope.

Question. Have you read the Rev. Father Lambert's
" Notes on Ingersoll," and if so, what have you to say of
them or in reply to them ?

Answer. I have read a few pages or paragraphs of that
pamphlet, and do not feel called upon to say anything. Mr.
Lambert has the same right to publish his ideas that I have,
and the readers must judge. People who believe his way
will probably -think that he has succeeded in answering me.
After all, he must leave the public to decide. I have no
anxiety about the decision. Day by day the people are
advancing, and in a little while the sacred superstitions of
to-day will be cast aside with the foolish myths and fables
of the pagan world.

As a matter of fact there can be no argument in favor of
the supernatural. Suppose you should ask if I had read the
work of that gentleman who says that twice two are five.
I should answer you that no gentleman can prove that
twice two are five; and yet this is exactly as easy as to
prove the existence of the supernatural. There are no
arguments in favor of the supernatural. There are theories
and fears and mistakes and prejudices and guesses, but no
arguments — plenty of faith, but no facts; plenty of divine
revelation, but no demonstration. The supernatural, in mj
judgment, is a mistake. I believe in the natural. — The

Buffalo, New York, May 19, 1884.

BLASPHEMY.*

I did not suppose that anybody was idiotic enough to
want me arrested for blasphemy. It seems to me that an in
finite Being can take care of himself without the aid of any
agent of a Bible society. Perhaps it is wrong for me to
be here while the Methodist Conference is in session. Of
course no one who differs from the Methodist ministers
should ever visit Philadelphia while they are here. I most
humbly hope to be forgiven.

Question. What do you think of the law of 1860 ?

Answer. It is exceedingly foolish. Surely, there is no
need for the Legislature of Pennsylvania to protect an in
finite God, and why should the Bible be protected by law ?
The most ignorant priest can hold Darwin up to orthodox
scorn. This talk of the Rev. Mr. Torrence shows that my
lectures are needed ; that religious people do not know what
real liberty is. I presume that the law of 1860 is an old
one re-enacted. It is a survival of ancient ignorance and
bigotry, and no one in the Legislature thought it worth
while to fight it. It is the same as the law against swear
ing, both are dead letters and amount to nothing. They
are not enforced and should not be. Public opinion will
regulate such matters. If all who take the name of God in
vain were imprisoned there would not be room in the jails
to hold the ministers. They speak of God in the most

* " If Robert G. Ingersoll indulges in blasphemy to-night in his lecture, as he has in
other places and in this city before, he will be arrested before he leaves the city." So
spoke Rev. Irwin H. Torrence, General Secretary of the Pennsylvania Bible Society, yes
terday afternoon to a Press reporter. " We have consulted counsel ; the law is with us,
and Ingersoll has but to do what he has done before, to find himself in a cell. Here is
the act of March 31, I860 : "

" If any person shall willfully, premeditated'.y and despitefully blaspheme or speak
loosely and profanely of Almighty God, Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or the Scriptures
of Truth, such person, on conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to pay a fine not ex
ceeding one hundred dollars, and undergo an imprisonment not exceeding three months,
or either, at the discretion of the court."

Last evening Colonel Ingersoll sat in the dining room at Guy's Hotel, just in from
New York City. When- told of the plans of Mr. Torrence and his friends, he laughed
and said : (202)

INTERVIEWS. 203

flippant and snap-your-fingers way that can be conceived
of. They speak to him as though he were an intimate
chum, and metaphorically slap him on the back in the most
familiar manner possible.

Question. Have you ever had any similar experience be
fore?

Answer. Oh yes — threats have been made, but I never
was arrested. When Mr. Torrence gets cool he will see
that he has made a mistake. People in Philadelphia have
been in the habit of calling the citizens of Boston bigots —
but there is more real freedom of thought and expression in
Boston than in almost any other city in the world. I
think that as I am to suffer in hell forever, Mr. Torrence
ought to be satisfied and let me have a good time here. He
can amuse himself through all eternity by seeing me in
hell, and that ought to be enough to satisfy, not only an
agent, but the whole Bible society. I never expected any
trouble in this State, and most sincerely hope that Mr.
Torrence will not trouble me and make the city a laughing
stock.

Philadelphia has no time to waste in such foolish things.
Let the Bible take its chances with other books. Let
everybody feel that he has the right freely to express his
opinions, provided he is decent and kind about it. Certainly
the Christians now ought to treat Infidels as well as Penn
did Indians.

Nothing could be more perfectly idiotic than in this
day and generation to prosecute any man for giving
his conclusions upon any religious subject. Mr. Torrence
would have had Huxley and Haeckel and Tyndall ar
rested ; would have had Humboldt and John Stuart Mill
and Harriet Martineau and George Eliot locked up in the
city jail. Mr. Torrence is a fossil from the old red sand
stone of a mistake. Let him rest. To hear these people
talk you would suppose that God is some petty king, some

2O4 INTERVIEWS.

liliputian prince, who was about to be dethroned, and who
was nearly wild for recruits.

Question. But what would you do if they should make an
attempt to arrest you ?

Answer. Nothing, except to defend myself in court. —

Philadelphia Press, May 24, 1884.

POLITICS AND BRITISH COLUMBIA.

Question. I understand that there was some trouble in
connection with your lecture in Victoria, B. C. What are
the facts ?

Answer. The published accounts, as circulated by the
Associated Press, were greatly exaggerated. The affair was
simply this: The authorities endeavored to prevent the
lecture. They refused the license, on the ground that the
theatre was unsafe, although it was on the ground floor, had
many exits and entrances, not counting the windows. The
theatre was changed to meet the objections of the fire com
missioner, and the authorities expressed their satisfaction
and issued the license. Afterward further objection was
raised, and on the night of the lecture, when the building
was about two-thirds full, the police appeared and said
that the lecture would not be allowed to be delivered, be
cause the house was unsafe. After a good deal of talk, the
policeman in authority said that there should be another
door, whereupon, my friends, in a few minutes, made another
door with an ax and saw, the crowd was admitted and the
lecture was delivered. The audience was well-behaved, in
telligent and appreciative. Beyond some talking in the
hall, and the natural indignation of those who had pur
chased tickets and were refused admittance, there was no
disturbance. I understand that those who opposed the
lecture are now heartily ashamed of the course pursued.

Question. Are you going to take any part in the cam
paign ?

INTERVIEWS. 205

Answer. It is not my intention to make any political
speeches. I have made a good many in the past, and, in
my judgment, have done my part. I have no other interest in
politics than every citizen should have. I want that party to
triumph which, in my judgment, represents the best inter
ests of the country. I have no doubt about the issue of the
election. I believe that Mr. Elaine will be the next Presi
dent. But there are plenty of talkers, and I really think
that I have earned a vacation.

Question. What do you think Cleveland's chances are in
New York ?

Answer. At this distance it is hard to say. The recent
action of Tammany complicates matters somewhat. But
my opinion is that Blaine will carry the State. I had a
letter yesterday from that State, giving the opinion of a
gentleman well informed, that Blaine would carry New
York by no less than fifty thousand majority.

Question. What figure will Butler cut in the campaign ?

Answer. I hardly think that Butler will have many fol
lowers on the 4th of November. His forces will gradu
ally go to one sida or the other. It is only when some
great principle is at stake that thousands of men are willing
to vote with a known minority.

Question. But what about the Prohibitionists ?

Answer. They have a very large following. They are
fighting for something they believe to be of altnc st infinite
consequence, and I can readily understand how a Prohibi
tionist is willing to be in the minority. It may be well
enough for me to say here, that my course politically is not
determined by my likes or dislikes of individuals. I want
to be governed by principles, not persons. If I really
thought that in this campaign a real principle was at
stake, I should take part. The only great question now
is protection, and I am satisfied that it is in no possible
danger.

2O6 INTERVIEWS.

Question. Not even in the case of a Democratic victory ?

Answer. Not even in the event of a Democratic victory.
No State in the Union is for free trade. Every free trader
has an exception. These exceptions combined, control the
tariff legislation of this country, and if the Democrats were
in power to-day, with the control of the House and Senate
and Executive, the exceptions would combine and protect
protection. As long as the Federal Government collects
taxes or revenue on imports, just so long these revenues
will be arranged to protect home manufacturers.

Question. You said that if there were a great principle at
stake, you would take part in the campaign. You think,
then, that there is no great principle involved ?

Answer. If it were a matter of personal liberty, I should
take part. If the Republican party had stood by the Civil
Rights Bill, I should have taken part in the present cam
paign.

Question. Still, I suppose we can count on you as a Repub
lican ?

Answer. Certainly, I am a Republican. — Evening Post, San

Francisco, California, September 16, 1834.

INGERSOLL CATECHISED.

Question. Does Christianity advance or retard civiliza
tion?

Answer. If by Christianity you mean the orthodox
church, then I unhesitatingly answer that it does retard
civilization, always has retarded it, and always will- I can
imagine no man who can be benefited by being made a
Catholic or a Presbyterian or a Baptist or a Methodist — or,
in other words, by being made an orthodox Christian. But
by Christianity I do not mean morality, kindness, forgive
ness, justice. Those virtues are not distinctively Christian.
They are claimed by Mohammedans and Buddhists, by
Infidels and Atheists — and practiced by some of all classes.

INTERVIEWS. 2O7

Christianity consists in the miraculous, the marvelous, and
the impossible.

The one thing that I most seriously object to in Chris
tianity is the doctrine of eternal punishment. That doctrine
subverts every idea of justice. It teaches the infinite
absurdity that a finite offence can be justly visited by eternal
punishment. Another serious objection I have, is, that
Christianity endeavors to destroy intellectual liberty.
Nothing is better calculated to retard civilization than to
subvert the idea of justice. Nothing is better calculated to
retain barbarism than to deny to every human being the
right to think. Justice and Liberty are the two wings that
bear man forward. The church, for a thousand years, did
all within its power to prevent the expression of honest
thought ; and when the church had power, there was in this
world no civilization. We have advanced just in the pro
portion that Christianity has lost power. Those nations in
which the church is still powerful are still almost savage —
Portugal, Spain, and many others I might name. Probably
no country is more completely under the control of the
religious idea than Russia. The Czar is the direct repre
sentative of God. He is the head of the church, as well as
of the state. In Russia every mouth is a bastile, and every
tongue a convict. This Russian pope, this representative
of God, has on earth his hell (Siberia), and he imitates the
orthodox God to the extent of his health and strength.

Everywhere man advances as the church loses power.
In my judgment, Ireland can never succeed until it ceases
to be Catholic; and there can be no successful uprising
while the confessional exists. At one time in New England
the church had complete power. There was then no relig
ious liberty. And so we might make a tour of the world,
and find that superstition always has been, is, and forever
will be, inconsistent with human advancement.

Question. Do not the evidences of design in the universe
prove a Creator?

208 INTERVIEWS.

Answer. If there were any evidences of design in the
universe, certainly they would tend to prove a designer,
but they would not prove a Creator. Design does not prove
creation. A man makes a machine. That does not prove
that he made the material out of which the machine is con
structed. You find the planets arranged in accordance with
what you call a plan. That does not prove that they were
created. It may prove that they are governed, but it
certainly does not prove that they were created. Is it con
sistent to say that a design cannot exist without a designer,
but that a designer can ? Does not a designer need a de
sign as much as a design needs a designer? Does not a
Creator need a Creator as much as the thing we think has
been created ? In other words, is not this simply a circle
of human ignorance ? Why not say that the universe has
existed from eternity, as well as to say that a Creator has
existed from eternity ? And do you not thus avoid at least
one absurdity by saying that the universe has existed from
eternity, instead of saying that it was created by a Creator
who existed from eternity ? Because if your Creator existed
from eternity, and created the universe, there was a time
when he commenced; and back of that, according to
Shelley, is "an eternity of idleness."

Some people say that God existed from eternity, and has
created eternity. It is impossible to conceive of an act
co-equal with eternity. If you say that God has existed for
ever, and has always acted, then you make the universe
eternal, and you make the universe as old as God; and
if the universe be as old as God, he certainly did not
create it.

These questions of origin and destiny — of infinite gods —
are beyond the powers of the human mind. They cannot
be solved. We might as well try to travel fast enough to
get beyond the horizon. It is like a man trying to run
away from his girdle. Consequently, I believe in turning

INTERVIEWS.

our attention to things of importance — to questions that
may by some possibility be solved. It is of no importance
to me whether God exists or not. I exist, and it is im
portant to me to be happy while I exist. Therefore I had
better turn my attention to finding out the secret of happi
ness, instead of trying to ascertain the secret of the
universe.

I say with regard to God, I do not know ; and therefore
I am accused of being arrogant and egotistic. Religious
papers say that I do know, because Webster told me. They
use Webster as a witness to prove the divinity of Christ.
They say that Webster was on the God side, and therefore
I ought to be. I can hardly afford to take Webster's ideas
of another world, when his ideas about this were so bad.
When bloodhounds were pursuing a woman through the
tangled swamps of the South — she hungry for liberty-
Webster took the side of the bloodhounds. Such a man is
no authority for me. Bacon denied the Copernican system
of astronomy ; he is an unsafe guide. Wesley believed in
witches; I cannot follow him. No man should quote a
name instead of an- argument ; no man should bring forward
a person instead of a principle, unless he is willing to accept
all the ideas of that person.

Question. Is not a pleasant illusion preferable to dreary
truth — a future life being in question ?

Answer. I think it is. I think that a pleasing illusion
is better than a terrible truth, so far as its immediate results
are concerned. I would rather think the one I love living,
than to think her dead. I would rather think that I had a
large balance in bank than that my account was overdrawn.
I would rather think I was healthy than to know that I had
a cancer. But if we have an illusion, let us have it pleasing.
The orthodox illusion is the worst that can possibly be con
ceived. Take hell out of that illusion, take eternal pain
away from that dream, and say that the whole world is to

2IO INTERVIEWS.

be happy forever — then you might have an excuse for
calling it a pleasant illusion ; but it is, in fact, a nightmare —
a perpetual horror — a cross, on which the happiness of man
has been crucified.

Question. Are not religion and morals inseparable?

Answer. Religion and morality have nothing in com
mon, and yet there is no religion except the practice of
morality. But what you call religion is simply superstition.
Religion as it is now taught teaches our duties toward God
— our obligations to the Infinite, and the results of a failure
to discharge those obligations. I believe that we are under
no obligations to the Infinite ; that we cannot be. All our
obligations are to each other, and to sentient beings.
" Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,"
has nothing to do with morality. " Do unto others as ye
would that others should do unto you" has nothing to do
with believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism has
nothing to do with morality. " Pay your honest debts."
That has nothing to do with baptism. What is called
religion is simple superstition, with which morality has
nothing to do.

The churches do not prevent people from committing
natural offences, but restrain them from committing arti
ficial ones. As for instance, the Catholic Church can prevent
one of its members from eating meat on Friday, but not
from whipping his wife. The Episcopal Church can prevent
dancing, it may be, in Lent, but not slander. The Presby
terian can keep a man from working on Sunday, but not
from practicing deceit on Monday. And so I might go
through the churches. They lay the greater stress upon the
artificial offences. Those countries that are the most re
ligious are the most immoral. When the world was under
the control of the Catholic Church, it reached the very pit
of immorality, and nations have advanced in morals just in
proportion that they have lost Christianity.

INTERVIEWS. 211

Question. It is frequently asserted that there is nothing
new in your objections against Christianity. What is your
reply to such assertions?

Answer. Of course, the editors of religious papers will
say this; Christians will say this. In my opinion, an argu
ment is new until it has been answered. An argument is
absolutely fresh, and has upon its leaves the dew of morning,
until it has been refuted. All men have experienced, it may
be, in some degree, what we call love. Millions of men
have written about it. The subject of course is old. It is
only the presentation that can be new. Thousands of men
have attacked superstition. The subject is old, but the
manner in which the facts are handled, the arguments
grouped — these may be forever new. Millions of men have
preached Christianity. Certainly there is nothing new in
the original ideas. Nothing can be new except the present
ation, the grouping. The ideas may be old, but they may
be clothed in new garments of passion ; they may be given
additional human interest. A man takes a fact, or an old
subject, as a sculptor takes a rock; the rock is not new.
Of this rock he makes a statue ; the statue is new. And
yet some orthodox man might say there is nothing new
about that statue: " I know the man that dug the rock; I
know the owner of the quarry." Substance is eternal ; forms
are new. So in the human mind certain ideas, or in the
human heart certain passions, are forever old ; but genius
forever gives them new forms, new meanings ; and this is
the perpetual originality of genius.

Question. Do you consider that churches are injurious to
the community ?

Answer. In the exact proportion that churches teach
falsehood ; in the exact proportion that they destroy liberty
of thought, the free action of the human mind ; in the exact
proportion that they teach the doctrine of eternal pain, and
convince people of its truth — they are injurious. In the

212 INTERVIEWS.

proportion that they teach morality and justice, and prac
tice kindness and charity — in that proportion they are a
benefit. Every church, therefore, is a mixed problem —
part good and part bad. In one direction it leads toward
and sheds light; in the other direction its influence is
entirely bad.

Now, I would like to civilize the churches, so that they
will be able to do good deeds without building bad creeds.
In other words, take out the superstitious and the mirac
ulous, and leave the human and the moral.

Question. Why do you not respond to the occasional
clergyman who replies to your lectures ?

Answer. In the first place, no clergyman has ever re
plied to my lectures. In the second place, no clergyman
ever will reply to my lectures. He does not answer my
arguments — he attacks me ; and the replies that I have seen
are not worth answering. They are far below the dignity
of the question under discussion. Most of them are ill-
mannered, as abusive as illogical, and as malicious as weak.
I cannot reply without feeling humiliated. I cannot use
their weapons, and my weapons they do not understand. I
attack Christianity because it is cruel, and they account
for all my actions by putting behind them base motives.
They make it at once a personal question. They imagine
that epithets are good enough arguments with which to
answer an Infidel. A few years ago they would have im
prisoned me. A few years before that they would have
burned me. We have advanced. Now they only slander ;
and I congratulate myself on the fact that even that is not
believed. Ministers do not believe each other about each
other. The truth has never yet been ascertained in any
trial by a church. The longer the trial lasts, the obscurer
is the truth. They will not believe each other, even on
oath; and one of the most celebrated ministers of this
country has publicly announced that there is no use in

INTERVIEWS.

answering a lie started by his own church ; that if he does
answer it — if he does kill it — forty more lies will come to
the funeral.

In this connection we must remember that the priests of
one religion never credit the miracles of another religion.
Is this because priests instinctively know priests? Now,
when a Christian tells a Buddhist some of the miracles of the
Testament, the Buddhist smiles. When a Buddhist tells a
Christian the miracles performed by Buddha, the Christian
laughs. This reminds me of an incident. A man told a
most wonderful story. Everybody present expressed sur
prise and astonishment, except one man. He said nothing;
he did not even change countenance. One who noticed
that the story had no effect on this man, said to him:
"You do not seem to be astonished in the least at this
marvelous tale." The man replied, "No; I am a liar
myself."

You see, I am not trying to answer individual ministers.
I am attacking the whole body of superstition. I am trying
to kill the entire dog, and I do not feel like wasting any
time killing fleas on that dog. When the dog dies, the fleas
will be out of provisions, and in that way we shall answer
them all at once.

So, I do not bother myself answering religious news
papers. In the first place, they are not worth answering;
and in the second place, to answer would only produce a
new crop of falsehoods. You know, the editor of a re
ligious newspaper, as a rule, is one who has failed in the
pulpit ; and you can imagine the brains necessary to edit a
religious weekly from this fact. I have known some good
religious editors. By some I mean one. I do not say that
there are not others, but I do say I do not know them. I
might add, here, that the one I did know is dead.

Since I have been in this city there have been some
"replies" to me. They have been almost idiotic. A

214 INTERVIEWS.

Catholic priest asked me how I had the impudence to diSet
with Newton. Newton, he says, believed in a God ; and I
ask this Catholic priest how he has the impudence to differ
with Newton. Newton was a Protestant. This simply
shows the absurdity of using men's names for arguments.
This same priest proves the existence of God by a pagan
orator. Is it possible that God's last witness died with
Cicero ? If it is necessary to believe in a God now, the
witnesses ought to be on hand now.

Another man, pretending to answer me, quotes Le
Conte, a geologist ; and according to this geologist we are
"getting very near to the splendors of the great white
throne." Where is the great white throne ? Can any one,
by studying geology, find the locality of the great white
throne ? To what stratum does it belong ? In what geo
logic period was the great white throne formed ? What on
earth has geology to do with the throne of God ?

The truth is, there can be no reply to the argument that
man should be governed by his reason ; that he should de
pend upon observation and experience ; that he should
use the faculties he has for his own benefit, and the benefit
of his fellow-men. There is no answer. It is not within
the power of man to substantiate the supernatural. It is
beyond the power of evidence.

Question. Why do the theological seminaries find it diffi
cult to get students ?

Answer. I was told last spring, at New Haven, that
the "theologs," as they call the young men there being
fitted for the ministry, were not regarded as intellectual
by all the other students. The orthodox pulpit has no re.
wards for genius. It has rewards only for stupidity, for
belief — not for investigation, not for thought ; and the
consequence is that young men of talent avoid the pulpit.
I think I heard the other day that of all the students at
Harvard only nine are preparing for the ministry. The

INTERVIEWS. 215

truth is, the ministry is not regarded as an intellectual oc
cupation. The average church now consists of women and
children. Men go to please their wives, or stay at home
and subscribe to please their wives ; and the wives are be
ginning to think, and many of them are staying at home.
Many of them now prefer the theatre or the opera or the
park or the seashore or the forest or the companionship of
their husbands and children at home.

Question. How does the religious state of California com
pare with the rest of the Union ?

Answer. I find that sensible people everywhere are
about the same, and the proportion of Freethinkers de
pends on the proportion of sensible folks. I think that
California has her full share of sensible people. I find
everywhere the best people and the brightest people —
the people with the most heart and the best brain — all
tending toward free thought. Of course, a man of brain
cannot believe the miracles of the Old and New Testaments.
A man of heart cannot believe in the doctrine of eternal
pain. We have found that other religions are like ours,
with precisely the same basis, the same idiotic miracles,
the same martyrs, the same early fathers, and, as a rule,
the same Christ or Savior. It will hardly do to say that all
others like ours are false, and ours the only true one, when
others substantially like it are thousands of years older.
We have at last found that a religion is simply an effort on
the part of man to account for what he sees, what he ex
periences, what he feels, what he fears, and what he hopes.
Every savage has his philosophy. That is his religion and
his science.

The religions of to-day are the sciences of the past ;
and it may be that the sciences of to-day will be the
religions of the future, and that other sciences will be as
far beyond them as the science of to-day is beyond the re
ligion of to-day. As a rule, religion is a sanctified mistake,

2l6 INTERVIEWS.

and heresy a slandered fact. In other words, the human
mind grows — and as it grows it abandons the old, and the
old gets it revenge by maligning the new. — The San Franciscan,

San Francisco, October 4, 1884.

ELAINE'S DEFEAT.

Question. Colonel, the fact that you took no part in the
late campaign, is a subject for general comment, and know
ing your former enthusiastic advocacy and support of
Elaine, the people are somewhat surprised, and would like
to know why ?

Answer. In the first place, it was generally supposed that
Elaine needed no help. His friends were perfectly confi
dent. They counted on a very large Catholic support.
The Irish were supposed to be spoiling to vote for Elaine
and Logan. All the Protestant ministers were also said to
be solid for the ticket. Under these circumstances it was
hardly prudent for me to say much.

I was for Elaine in 1876. In 1880 I was for Garfield, and
in 1884 I was forGresham or Harlan. I believed then and
I believe now that either one of those men could have been
elected. Elaine is an exceedingly able man, but he made
some mistakes and some very unfortunate utterances. I
took no part in the campaign; first, because there was
no very important issue, no great principle at stake, and,
second, I thought that I had done enough, and, third, be
cause I wanted to do something else.

Question. What, in your opinion, were the causes for
Elaine's defeat ?

Answer. First, because of dissension in the party.
Second, because party ties have grown weak. Third, the
Prohibition vote. Fourth, the Delmonico dinner — too
many rich men. Fifth, the Rev. Dr. Burchard with his
Rum, Romanism and Rebellion. Sixth, giving too much
attention to Ohio and not enough to New York. Seventh,
the unfortunate remark of Mr. Elaine, that " the State can-

INTERVIEWS. 217

not get along without the Church." Eighth, the weakness
of the present administration. Ninth, the abandonment
by the party of the colored people of the South. Tenth,
the feeling against monopolies, and not least, a general
desire for a change.

Question. What, in your opinion, will be the result of
Cleveland's election and administration upon the general
political and business interests of the country ?

Answer. The business interests will take care of them
selves. A dollar has the instinct of self-preservation
largely developed. The tariff will take care of itself. No
State is absolutely for free trade. In each State there is an
exception. The exceptions will combine, as they always
have. Michigan will help Pennsylvania take care of iron,
if Pennsylvania will help Michigan take care of salt and
lumber. Louisiana will help Pennsylvania and Michigan if
they help her take care of sugar. Colorado, California and
Ohio will help the other States if they will help them about
wool — and so I might make a tour of the States, ending
with Vermont and maple sugar. I do not expect that
Cleveland will do any great harm. The Democrats want to
stay in power, and that desire will give security for good
behavior.

Question. Will he listen to or grant any demands made
of him by the alleged Independent Republicans of New
York, either in his appointments or policies?

Answer. Of this I know nothing. The Independents —
from what I know of them — will be too modest to claim
credit or to ask office. They were actuated by pure prin
ciple. They did what they did to purify the party, so that
they could stay in it. Now that it has been purified they
will remain, and hate the Democratic party as badly as
ever. I hardly think that Cleveland would insult their mo
tives by offering loaves and fishes. All they desire is the

approval of their Own Consciences. — The Commonwealth, Topektu
Kansas, November 81, 1884.

ELAINE'S DEFEAT.

Question. How do you account for the defeat of Mr.
Elaine ?

Answer. How do I account for the defeat of Mr. Elaine ?
I will answer: St. John, the Independents, Burchard,
Butler and Cleveland did it. The truth is that during the
war a majority of the people, counting those in the South,
were opposed to putting down the Rebellion by force. It is
also true that when the Proclamation of Emancipation was
issued a majority of the people, counting the whole country,
were opposed to it, and it is also true that when the colored
people were made citizens a majority of the people, count-
?ng the whole country, were opposed to it.

Now, while, in my judgment, an overwhelming majority
of the whole people have honestly acquiesced in the result
of the war, and are now perfectly loyal to the Union, and
have also acquiesced in the abolition of slavery, I doubt
very much whether they are really in favor of giving the col
ored man the right to vote. Of course they have not the power
now to take that right away, but they feel anything but
kindly toward the party that gave the colored man that
right. That is the only result of the war that is not fully
accepted by the South and by many Democrats of the
North.

Another thing,the Republican party was divided — divided
too by personal hatreds. The party was greatly injured by
the decision of the Supreme Court in which the Civil Rights
Bill was held void. Now, a great many men who kept with
the Republican party, did so because they believed that that
party would protect the colored man in the South, but as
soon as the Court decided that all the laws passed were un-

INTERVIEWS. 2ig

constitutional, these men felt free to vote for the other
side, feeling that it would make no difference. They rea
soned this way : If the Republican party cannot defend
the colored people, why make a pretence that excites hatred
on one side and disarms the other? If the colored people
have to depend upon the State for protection, and the Fed
eral Government cannot interfere, why say any more
about it ?

I think that these men made a mistake and our party
made a mistake in accepting without protest a decision that
was far worse than the one delivered in the case of Dred
Scott. By accepting this decision the most important issue
was abandoned. The Republican party must take the old
ground that it is the duty of the Federal Government to
protect the citizens, and that it cannot simply leave that
duty to the State. It must see to it that the State performs
that duty.

Question. Have you seen the published report that Dorsey
claims to have paid you one hundred thousand dollars for
your services in the Star Route Cases ?

Answer. I have seen the report, but Dorsey never said
anything like that.

Question. Is there no truth in the statement, then ?

Answer. Well, Dorsey never said anything of the kind.

Question. Then you do not deny that you received such
an enormous fee ?

Answer. All I say is that Dorsey did not say I did.*

The Commercial^ Louisville, Kentucky, October 24, 1884.

• Col. Ingeraoll has been so criticised and maligned for defending Mr. Dorsey in the
Star Route i-ases, and so frequently charged with having received an enormous fee, that
I think it but simple justice to his memory to say that he received no such fee, and that
the ridiculously small sums he did receive were much more than offset by the amount
he had to pay as indoreer of Mr. Doreey's paper.— C. P.

PLAGIARISM AND POLITICS.

Question. What have you to say about the charges pub
lished in this morning's Herald to the effect that you copied
your lecture about " Mistakes of Moses " from a chapter
bearing the same title in a book called Hittell's " Evidences
against Christianity " ?

Answer, All I have to say is that the charge is utterly
false. I will give a thousand dollars reward to any one
who will furnish a book published before my lecture, in
which that lecture can be found. It is wonderful how
malicious the people are who love their enemies. This
charge is wholly false, as all others of like nature are. I
do not have to copy the writings of others. The Christians
do not seem to see that they are constantly complimenting
me by saying that what I write is so good that I must have
stolen it. Poor old orthodoxy !

Question. What is your opinion of the incoming adminis
tration, and how will it affect the country ?

Answer. I feel disposed to give Cleveland a chance. If
he does the fair thing, then it is the duty of all good
citizens to say so. I do not expect to see the whole country
go to destruction because the Democratic party is in power.
Neither do I believe that business is going to suffer on that
account. The times are hard, and I fear will be much
harder, but they would have been substantially the same if
Elaine had been elected. I wanted the Republican party
to succeed and fully expected to see Mr. Elaine President,
but I believe in making the best of what has happened. I
want no office, I want good government — wise legislation.
I believe in protection, but I want the present tariff re
formed and I hope the Democrats will be wise enough to

do SO. (890)

INTERVIEWS. 221

Question. How will the Democratic victory affect the col
ored people in the South ?

Answer. Certainly their condition will not be worse than
it has been. The Supreme Court decided that the Civil
Rights Bill was unconstitutional and that the Federal Gov
ernment cannot interfere. That was a bad decision and our
party made a mistake in not protesting against it. I believe
it to be the duty of the Federal Government to protect all
its citizens, at home as well as abroad. My hope is that
there will be a division in the Democratic party. That party
has something now to divide. At last it has a bone, and
probably the fighting will commence. I hope that some
new issue will take color out of politics, something about
which both white and colored may divide. Of course
nothing would please me better than to see the Democratic
party become great and grand enough to give the colored
people their rights.

Question. Why did you not take any part in the cam
paign ?

Answer. Well, I was afraid of frightening the preachers
away. I might have done good by scaring one, but I did
not know Burchard until it was too late. Seriously, I did
not think that I was needed. I supposed that Elaine had a
walkover, that he was certain to carry New York. I had
business of my own to attend to and did not not wish to in
terfere with the campaign.

Question. What do you think of the policy of nominating
Blaine in 1888, as has been proposed ?

Answer. I think it too early to say what will be done in
1888. Parties do not exist for one man. Parties have cer
tain ends in view and they choose men as instruments to
accomplish these ends. Parties belong to principles, not
persons. No party can afford to follow anybody. If in
1888 Mr. Blaine should appear to be the best man for the
party then he will be nominated, otherwise not. I know

222 INTERVIEWS.

nothing about any intention to nominate him again and
have no idea whether he has that ambition. The Whig
party was intensely loyal to Henry Clay and forgot the
needs of the country, and allowed the Democrats to suc
ceed with almost unknown men. Parties should not be
long to persons, but persons should belong to parties.
Let us not be too previous — let us wait.

Question. What do you think of the course pursued by
the Rev. Drs. Ball and Burchard ?

Answer, In politics the preacher is somewhat dangerous.
He has a standard of his own ; he has queer ideas of evi
dence, great reliance on hearsay ; he is apt to believe things
against candidates, just because he wants to. The preacher
thinks that all who differ with him are instigated by the
Devil — that their intentions are evil, and that when they be
have themselves they are simply covering the poison with
sugar. It would have been far better for the country if
Mr. Ball had kept still. I do not pretend to say that his
intentions were not good. He likely thought it his duty
to lift a warning voice, to bawl aloud and to spare not, but I
think he made a mistake, and he now probably thinks so
himself. Mr. Burchard was bound to say a smart thing.
It sounded well, and he allowed his ears to run away with
his judgment. As a matter of fact, there is no connection
between rum and Romanism. Catholic countries do not
use as much alcohol as Protestant. England has far more
drunkards than Spain. Scotland can discount Italy or
Portugal in good, square drinking. So there is no connec
tion between Romanism and rebellion. Ten times as many
Methodists and twenty times as many Baptists went into
<;h«i Rebellion as Catholics. Thousands of Catholics fought

: bravely as Protestants for the preservation of the Union.
No doubt Mr. Burchard intended well. He thought he was
giving Blaine a battle-cry that would send consternation
into the hearts of the opposition. My opinion is that in

INTERVIEWS. 223

the next campaign the preachers will not be called to the
front. Of course they have the same right to express their
views that other people have, but other people have the
right to avoid the responsibility of appearing to agree with
them. I think though that it is about time to let up on
Burchard. He has already unloaded on the Lord.

Question. Do you think Cleveland will put any Southern
men in his Cabinet.

Answer. I do. Nothing could be in worse taste than to
ignore the section that gave him three-fourths of his vote.
The people have put the Democratic party in power.
They intended to do what they did, and why should the
South not be recognized ? Garland would make a good
Attorney - General ; Lamar has the ability to fill any posi
tion in the Cabinet. I could name several others well
qualified, and I suppose that two or three Southern men
will be in the Cabinet. If they are good enough to elect a
President they are good enough to be selected by a Presi
dent.

Question. What do you think of Mr. Conkling's course?

Answer. Mr. Conkling certainly had the right to keep
still. He was under no obligation to the party. The Re
publican papers have not tried to secure his services. He
has been very generally and liberally denounced ever since
his quarrel with Mr. Garfield, and it is only natural to resent
what a man feels to be an injustice. I suppose he has done
what he honestly thought was, under the circumstances,
his duty. I believe him to be a man of stainless integrity,
and he certainly has as much independence of character as
one man can carry. It is time to put the party whip away.
People can be driven from, but not to, the Republican party.
It we expect to win in 1888 we must welcome recruits. — TI^

Plain Dealer, Cleveland, Ohio, Dec. 11, 1884.

RELIGIOUS PREJUDICE.

Question. Will a time ever come when political cam
paigns will be conducted independently of religious preju
dice?

Answer. As long as men are prejudiced, they will prob
ably be religious, and certainly as long as they are religious
they will be prejudiced, and every religionist who imagines
the next world infinitely more important than this, and
who imagines that he gets his orders from God instead of
from his own reason, or from his fellow-citizens, and who
thinks that he should do something for the glory of God in
stead of for the benefit of his fellow-citizens — just as long
as they believe these things, just so long their prejudices
will control their votes. Every good, ignorant, orthodox
Christian places his Bible above laws and constitutions.
Every good, sincere and ignorant Catholic puts pope above
king and president, as well as above the legally expressed
will of a majority of his countrymen. Every Christian
believes God to be the source of all authority. I believe
that the authority to govern comes from the consent of the
governed. Man is the source of power, and to protect and
increase human happiness should be the object of govern
ment. I think that religious prejudices are growing weaker
because religious belief is growing weaker. And these prej
udices — should men ever become really civilized — will
finally fade away. I think that a Presbyterian, to-day, has
no more prejudice against an Atheist than he has against a
Catholic. A Catholic does not dislike an Infidel any more
than he does a Presbyterian, and I believe, to-day, that most
of the Presbyterians would rather see an Atheist President
than a pronounced Catholic. (224)

INTERVIEWS. 225

Question. Is Agnosticism gaining ground in the United
States?

Answer. Of course, there are thousands and thousands of
men who have now advanced intellectually to the point of
perceiving the limit of human knowledge. In other words,
at last they are beginning to know enough to know what
can and what cannot be known. Sensible men know that
nobody knows whether an infinite God exists or not. Sensi
ble men know that an infinite personality cannot, by human
testimony, be established. Sensible men are giving up try
ing to answer the questions of origin and destiny, and are
paying more attention to what happens between these ques
tions — that is to say, to this world. Infidelity increases as
knowledge increases, as fear dies, and as the brain develops.
After all, it is a question of intelligence. Only cunning
performs a miracle, only ignorance believes it.

Question. Do you think that evolution and revealed relig
ion are compatible — that is to say, can a man be an evolu
tionist and a Christian?

Answer. Evolution and Christianity may be compatible,
provided you take the ground that Christianity is only one
of the links in the chain, one of the phases of civilization.
But if you mean by Christianity what is generally under
stood, of course that and evolution are absolutely incom
patible. Christianity pretends to be not only the truth, but,
so far as religion is concerned, the whole truth. Christian
ity pretends to give a history of religion and a prophecy of
destiny. As a philosophy, it is an absolute failure. As a
history, it is false. There is no possible way by which
Darwin and Moses can be harmonized. There is an irre
pressible conflict between Christianity and Science, and
both cannot long inhabit the same brain. You cannot har
monize evolution and the atonement. The survival of the
fittest does away with original sin.

Question. From your knowledge of the religious tendency

226 INTERVIEWS.

in the United States, how long will orthodox religion be
popular ?

Answer. I do not think that orthodox religion is popular
to-day. The ministers dare not preach the creed in all its
naked deformity and horror. They are endeavoring with
the vines of sentiment to cover up the caves and dens in
which crawl the serpents of their creed. Very few ministers
care now to speak of eternal pain. They leave out the lake
of fire and brimstone. They are not fond of putting in the
lips of Christ the loving words, " Depart from me, ye cursed."
The miracles are avoided. In short, what is known as or
thodoxy is already unpopular. Most ministers are endeav
oring to harmonize what they are pleased to call science and
Christianity, and nothing is now so welcome to the average
Christian as some work tending to show that, after all,
Joshua was an astronomer.

Question. What section of the United States, East, West,
North, or South, is the most advanced in liberal religious
ideas ?

Answer. That section of the country in which there is
the most intelligence is the most liberal. That section of
the country where there is the most ignorance is the most
prejudiced. The least brain is the most orthodox. There
possibly is no more progressive city in the world, no more
liberal, than Boston. Chicago is full of liberal people. So is
San Francisco. The brain of New York is liberal. Every
town, every city, is liberal in the precise proportion that it
is intelligent.

Question. Will the religion of humanity be the religion of
the future ?

Answer. Yes ; it is the only religion now. All other is
superstition. What they call religion rests upon a supposed
relation between man and God. In what they call religion
man is asked to do something for God. As God wants
nothing, and can by no possibility accept anything, such a

INTERVIEWS. 227

religion is simply superstition. Humanity is the only pos
sible religion. Whoever imagines that he can do anything
for God is mistaken. Whoever imagines that he can add
to his happiness in the next world by being useless in this,
is also mistaken. And whoever thinks that any God cares
how he cuts his hair or his clothes, or what he eats, or
whether he fasts, or rings a bell, or puts holy water on his
breast, or counts beads, or shuts his eyes and says words to
the clouds, is laboring under a great mistake.

Question. A man in the Swaim Court Martial case was
excluded as a witness because he was an Atheist. Do you
think the law in the next decade will permit the affirmative
oath?

Answer. If belief affected your eyes, your ears, any of
your senses, or your memory, then, of course, no man ought
to be a witness who had not the proper belief. But unless
it can be shown that Atheism interferes with the sight, the
hearing, or memory, why should justice shut the door to
truth?

In most of the States of this Union I could not give testi
mony. Should a man be murdered before my eyes I could
not tell a jury who did it. Christianity endeavors to make
an honest man an outlaw. Christianity has such a con
temptible opinion of human nature that it does not believe
a man can tell the truth unless frightened by a belief in God.
No lower opinion of the human race has ever been expressed.

Question. Do you think that bigotry would persecute now
for religious opinion's sake, if it were not for the law and
the press ?

Answer. I think that the church would persecute to-day
if it had the power, just as it persecuted in the past. We
are indebted for nearly all our religious liberty to the
hypocrisy of the church. The church does not believe.
Some in the church do, and if they had the power, they
would torture and burn as of yore. Give the Presbyterian

228 INTERVIEWS.

Church the power, and it would not allow an Infidel to live.
Give the Methodist Church the power and the result would
be the same. Give the Catholic Church the power — just
the same. No church in the United States would be willing
that any other church should have the power. The only
men who are to be angels in the next world are the ones
who cannot be trusted with human liberty in this ; and the
men who are destined to live forever in hell are the only
gentlemen with whom human liberty is safe. Why should
Christians refuse to persecute in this world, when their

God is going tO in the next ? — Mail and Express, New York, January
12, 1885.

CLEVELAND AND HIS CABINET.

Question. What do you think of Mr. Cleveland's Cabi
net ?

Answer. It is a very good Cabinet. Some objections
have been made to Mr. Lamar, but I think he is one of the
very best. He is a man of ability, of unquestioned integ
rity, and is well informed on national affairs. Ever since
he delivered his eulogy on the life and services of Sumner,
I have had great respect for Mr. Lamar. He is far be
yond the most of his constituents, and has done much to
destroy the provincial prejudices of Mississippi. He will
without doubt make an excellent Secretary of the In
terior. The South has no better representative man, and
I believe his appointment will, in a little while, be satis
factory to the whole country. Bayard stands high in
his party, and will certainly do as well as his immediate
predecessor. Nothing could be better than the change in
the Department of Justice. Garland is an able lawyer
has been an influential Senator and will, in my judgment,
make an excellent Attorney-General. The rest of the
Cabinet I know little about, but from what I hear I believe
they are men of ability and that they will discharge their
duties well. Mr. Vilas has a great reputation in Wis-

INTERVIEWS. 229

consin, and is one of the best and most forcible speakers
in the country.

Question. Will Mr. Cleveland, in your opinion, carry out
the civil service reform he professes to favor ?

Answer. I have no reason to suspect even that he will
not. He has promised to execute the law, and the promise
is in words that do not admit of two interpretations. Of
course he is sincere. He knows that this course will save
him a world of trouble, and he knows that it makes no
difference about the politics of a copyist. All the offices of
importance will in all probability be filled by Democrats.
The President will not put himself in the power of his
opponents. If he is to be held responsible for the admin
istration he must be permitted to choose his own assistants.
This is too plain to talk about. Let us give Mr. Cleveland
a fair show — and let us expect success instead of failure.
I admit that many Presidents have violated their promises.
There seems to be something in the atmosphere of Wash
ington that breeds promise and prevents performance. I
suppose it is some kind of political malarial microbe. I
hope that some political Pasteur will, one of these days,
discover the real disease so that candidates can be vac
cinated during the campaign. Until then, presidential
promises will be liable to a discount.

Question. Is the Republican party dead ?

Answer. My belief is that the next President will be a
Republican, and that both houses will be Republican in
1889. Mr. Elaine was defeated by an accident — by the slip
of another man's tongue. But it matters little what party
is in power if the Government is administered upon correct
principles, and if the Democracy adopt the views of the
Republicans and carry out Republican measures, it may be
that they can keep in power — otherwise — otherwise. If
the Democrats carry out real Democratic measures, then
their defeat is certain.

23O INTERVIEWS.

Question. Do you think the era of good feeling between
the North and the South has set in with the appointment
of ex-rebels to the Cabinet ?

Answer. The war is over. The South failed. The Nation
succeeded. We should stop talking about South and
North. We are one people, and whether we agree or dis
agree one destiny awaits us. We cannot divide. We must
live together. We must trust each other. Confidence be
gets confidence. The whole country was responsible for
slavery. Slavery was rebellion. Slavery is dead — so is
rebellion. Liberty has united the country and there is
more real union, national sentiment to-day, North and
South, than ever before.

Question. It is hinted that Mr. Tilden is really the power
behind the throne. Do you think so ?

Answer. I guess nobody has taken the hint. Of course
Mr. Tilden has retired from politics. The probability is
that many Democrats ask his advice, and some rely on his
judgment. He is regarded as a piece of ancient wisdom —
a phenomenal persistence of the Jeffersonian type — the con
necting link with the framers, founders and fathers. The
power behind the throne is the power that the present
occupant supposes will determine who the next occupant
shall be.

Question. With the introduction of the Democracy into
power, what radical changes will take place in the Govern
ment, and what will be the result ?

Answer. If the President carries out his inaugural prom
ises there will be no radical changes, and if he does not there
will be a very radical change at the next presidential
election. The inaugural is a very good Republican docu
ment. There is nothing in it calculated to excite alarm.
There is no dangerous policy suggested — no conceited vaga
ries — nothing but a plain statement of the situation and the
duty of the Chief Magistrate as understood by the Presi-

INTERVIEWS. 331

deru. I think that the inaugural surprised the Democrats
and the Republicans both, and if the President carries out
the program he has laid down he will surprise and pacify
a large majority of the American people. — Mail and Express^

New York, March 10, 1885.

RELIGION, PROHIBITION AND GEN. GRANT.

Question. What do you think of prohibition, and what do
you think of its success in this State?

Answer. Few people understand the restraining influence
of liberty. Moderation walks hand in hand with freedom.
I do not mean the freedom springing from the sudden
rupture of restraint. That kind of freedom usually rushes
to extremes.

People must be educated to take care of themselves, and
this education must commence in infancy. Self-restraint is
the only kind that can always be depended upon. Of course
intemperance is a great evil. It causes immense suffering —
clothes wives and children in rags, and is accountable for
many crimes, particularly those of violence. Laws to be of
value must be honestly enforced. Laws that sleep had
better be dead. Laws to be enforced must be honestly
approved of and believed in by a large majority of the
people. Unpopular laws make hypocrites, perjurers and
official shirkers of duty. And if to the violation of such
laws severe penalties attach, they are rarely enforced. Laws
that create artificial crimes are the hardest to carry into
effect. You can never convince a majority of people that it
is as bad to import goods without paying the legal duty as
to commit larceny. Neither can you convince a majority of
people that it is a crime or a sin, or even a mistake to drink
a glass of wine or beer. Thousands and thousands of
people in this State honestly believe that prohibition is an
interference with their natural rights, and they feel justified
in resorting to almost any means to defeat the law.

232 INTERVIEWS.

In this way the people become somewhat demoralized. It
is unfortunate to pass laws that remain unenforced on
account of their unpopularity. People who would on most
subjects swear to the truth do not hesitate to testify falsely
on a prohibition trial. In addition to this, every known de
vice is resorted to, to sell in spite of the law, and when some
want to sell and a great many want to buy, considerable
business will be done, while there are fewer saloons and less
liquor sold in them. The liquor is poorer and the price is
higher. The consumer has to pay for the extra risk.
More liquor finds its way to homes, more men buy by the
bottle and gallon. In old times nearly everybody kept a
little rum or whiskey on the sideboard. The great Wash-
ingtonian temperance movement drove liquor out of the
home and increased the taverns and saloons. Now we are
driving liquor back to the homes. In my opinion there
is a vast difference between distilled spirits and the lighter
drinks, such as wine and beer. Wine is a fireside and
whiskey a conflagration. These lighter drinks are not un-
healthful and do not, as I believe, create a craving for
stronger beverages. You will, I think, find it almost
impossible to enforce the present law against wine and beer.
I was told yesterday that there are some sixty places in
Cedar Rapids where whiskey is sold. It takes about as
much ceremony to get a drink as it does to join the Masons,
but they seem to like the ceremony. People seem to take
delight in outwitting the State when it does not involve the
commission of any natural offence, and when about to be
caught, may not hesitate to swear falsely to the extent of
"don't remember," or "can't say positively," or "can't
swear whether it was whiskey or not."

One great trouble in Iowa is that the politicians, or many
of them who openly advocate prohibition, are really opposed
to it. They want to keep the German vote, and they do not
want to lose native Republicans. They feel a "divided

INTERVIEWS. 233

duty " to ride both horses. This causes the contrast between
their conversation and their speeches. A few years ago I
took dinner with a gentleman who had been elected
Governor of one of our States on the Prohibition ticket.
We had four kinds of wine during the meal, and a pony of
brandy at the end. Prohibition will never be a success
until it prohibits the Prohibitionists. And yet I most sin
cerely hope and believe that the time will come when
drunkenness shall have perished from the earth. Let us
cultivate the love of home. Let husbands and wives and
children be companions. Let them seek amusements
together. If it is a good place for father to go, it is a good
place for mother and the children. I believe that a home
can be made more attractive than a saloon. Let the boys
and girls amuse themselves at home — play 'games, study
music, read interesting books, and let the parents be their
playfellows. The best temperance lecture, in the fewest
words, you will find in Victor Hugo's great novel "Les
Miserables." The grave digger is asked to take a drink. He
refuses and gives this reason: "The hunger of my family
is the enemy of my thirst."

Question. Many people wonder why you are out of
politics. Will you give your reasons ?

Answer. A few years ago great questions had to be settled.
The life of the nation was at stake. Later the liberty of
millions of slaves depended upon the action of the Govern
ment. Afterward reconstruction and the rights of citizens
pressed themselves upon the people for solution. And
last, the preservation of national honor and credit. These
questions did not enter into the last campaign. They had
all been settled, and properly settled, with the one exception
of the duty of the nation to protect the colored citizens. The
Supreme Court settled that, at least for a time, and settled
it wrong. But the Republican party submitted to the civil
rights decision, and so, as between the great parties, that

234 INTERVIEWS.

question did not arise. This left only two questions — pro
tection and office. But as a matter of fact, all Republicans
were not for our present system of protection, and all
Democrats were not against it. On that question each
party was and is divided. On the other question — office —
both parties were and are in perfect harmony. Nothing
remains now for the Democrats to do except to give a
"working" definition of "offensive partisanship."

Question. Do you think that the American people are
seeking after truth, or do they want to be amused ?

Answer. We have all kinds. Thousands are earnestly
seeking for the truth. They are looking over the old
creeds, they are studying the Bible for themselves, they have
the candor born of courage, they are depending upon them
selves instead of on the clergy. They have found out that
the clergy do not know ; that their sources of information
are not reliable; that, like the politician, many ministers
preach one way and talk another. The doctrine of eternal
pain has driven millions from the church. People with
good hearts cannot get consolation out of that cruel lie.
The ministers themselves are getting ashamed to call that
doctrine " the tidings of great joy." The American people
are a serious people. They want to know the truth. They
feel that whatever the truth may be they have the courage
to hear it. The American people also have a sense of
humor. They like to see old absurdities punctured and
solemn stupidity held up to laughter. They are, on the aver
age, the most intelligent people on the earth. They can
see the point. Their wit is sharp, quick and logical,
Nothing amuses them more than to see the mask pulled
from the face of sham. The average American is generous,
intelligent, level-headed, manly, and good-natured.

Question. What, in your judgment, is the source of the
greatest trouble among men ?

Answer. Superstition. That has caused more agony,

INTERVIEWS. 235

more tears, persecution and real misery than all other
causes combined. The other name for superstition is
ignorance. When men learn that all sin is a mistake, that
all dishonesty is a blunder, that even intelligent selfishness
will protect the rights of others, there will be vastly more
happiness in this world. Shakespeare says that "There is
no darkness but ignorance." Sometime man will learn that
when he steals from another, he robs himself — that the
way to be happy is to make others so, and that it is far
better to assist his fellow-man than to fast, say prayers,
count beads or build temples to the Unknown. Some
people tell us that selfishness is the only sin, but selfishness
grows in the soil of ignorance. After all, education is the
great lever, and the only one capable of raising mankind.
People ignorant of their own rights are ignorant of the
rights of others. Every tyrant is the slave of ignorance.

Question. How soon do you think we would have the
millennium if every person attended strictly to his own
business ?

Answer. Now, if every person were intelligent enough to
know his own business — to know just where his rights
ended and the rights of others commenced, and then had
the wisdom and honesty to act accordingly, we should
have a very happy world. Most people like to control the
conduct of others. They love to write rules, and pass laws
for the benefit of their neighbors, and the neighbors are
pretty busy at the same business. People, as a rule, think
that they know the business of other people better than
they do their own. A man watching others play checkers
or chess always thinks he sees better moves than the
players make. When all people attend to their own busi
ness they will know that a part of their own business is to
increase the happiness of others.

Question. What is causing the development of this
country ?

236 INTERVIEWS.

Answer. Education, the free exchange of ideas, inven
tions by which the forces of nature become our servants,
intellectual hospitality, a willingness to hear the other
side, the richness of our soil, the extent of our territory,
the diversity of climate and production, our system of
government, the free discussion of political questions, our
social freedom, and above all, the fact that labor is honor
able.

Question. What is your opinion of the religious tendency
of the people of this country ?

Answer. Using the word religion in its highest and best
sense, the people are becoming more religious. We are far
more religious — using the word in its best sense — than
when we believed in human slavery, but we are not as
orthodox as we were then. We have more principle and
less piety. We care more for the right and less for the
creed. The old orthodox dogmas are mouldy. You will
find moss on their backs. They are only brought out
when a new candidate for the ministry is to be examined.
Only a little while ago in New York a candidate for the
Presbyterian pulpit was examined and the following is a
part of the examination :

Question. ' ' Do you believe in eternal punishment, as set forth in
the confession of faith ?"

Answer. (With some hesitation) " Yes, I do."

Question. " Have you preached on that subject lately?"

Answer. " No. I prepared a sermon on hell, in which I took the
ground that the punishment of the wicked will be endless, and have
it with me."

Question. " Did you deliver it ? "

Answer. " No. I thought that my congregation would not care to
hear it. The doctrine is rather unpopular where I have been preach
ing, and I was afraid I might do harm, so I have not delivered it yet."

Question. " But you believe in eternal damnation, do you not? "

Answer. " O yes, with all my heart."

He was admitted, and the admission proves the dishon
esty of the examiners and the examined. The new version

INTERVIEWS. 237

of the Old and New Testaments has done much to
weaken confidence in the doctrine of inspiration. It has
occurred to a good many that if God took the pains to
inspire men to write the Bible, he ought to have inspired
others to translate it correctly. The general tendency to
day is toward science, toward naturalism, toward what is
called Infidelity, but is in fact fidelity. Men are in a tran
sition state, and the people, on the average, have more real
good, sound sense to-day than ever before. The church is
losing its power for evil. The old chains are wearing out,
and new ones are not being made. The tendency is
toward intellectual freedom, and that means the final
destruction of the orthodox bastile.

Question. What is your opinion of General Grant as he
stands before the people to-day.

Answer. I have always regarded General Grant as the
greatest soldier this continent has produced. He is to-day
the most distinguished son of the Republic. The people
have the greatest confidence in his ability, his patriotism
and his integrity. The financial disaster impoverished
General Grant, but did not stain the reputation of the grand
soldier who led to many victories the greatest army that
ever fought for the liberties of man. — Iowa state Register , May 23,

1S85.

HELL OR SHEOL AND OTHER SUBJECTS.

Question. Colonel, have you read the revised Testament ?

Answer. Yes, but I don't believe the work has been
fairly done. The clergy are not going to scrape the butter
off their own bread. The clergy are offensive partisans,
and those of each denomination will interpret the Scrip
tures their way. No Baptist minister would countenance
a " Revision " that favored sprinkling, and no Catholic
priest would admit that any version would be correct that
destroyed the dogma of the " real presence. " So I might
go through all the denominations.

238 INTERVIEWS.

Question. Why was the word sheol introduced in place
of hell, and how do you like the substitute ?

Answer. The civilized world has outgrown the vulgar
and brutal hell of their fathers and founders of the churches.
The clergy are ashamed to preach about sulphurous flames
and undying worms. The imagination of the world has
been developed, the heart has grown tender, and the old
dogma of eternal pain shocks all civilized people. It is
becoming disgraceful either to preach or believe in such a
beastly lie. The clergy are beginning to think that it is
hardly manly to frighten children with a detected false
hood. Sheol is a great relief. It is not so hot as the old
place. The nights are comfortable, and the society is quite
refined. The worms are dead, and the air reasonably free
from noxious vapors. It is a much worse word to hold a
revival with, but much better for every day use. It will
hardly take the place of the old word when people step on
tacks, put up stoves, or sit on pins ; but for use at church
fairs and mite societies it will do about as well. We do
not need revision ; excision is what we want. The bar
barism should be taken out of the Bible. Passages up
holding polygamy, wars of extermination, slavery, and
religious persecution should not be attributed to a perfect
God. The good that is in the Bible will be saved for man,
and man will be saved from the evil that is in that book.
Why should we worship in God what we detest in
man?

Question. Do you think the use of the word sheol will
make any difference to the preachers ?

Answer. Of course it will make no difference with Talmage.
He will make sheol just as hot and smoky and uncomfort
able as hell, but the congregation will laugh instead of
tremble. The old shudder has gone. Beecher had demol
ished hell before sheol was adopted. According to his
doctrine of evolution hell has been slowly growing cool.

INTERVIEWS. 239

The cindered souls do not even perspire. Sheol is nothing
to Mr. Beecher but a new name for an old mistake. As for
the effect it will have on Heber Newton, I cannot tell,
neither can he, until he asks his bishop. There are people
who believe in witches and madstones and fiat money,
and centuries hence it may be that people will exist who
will believe as firmly in hell as Dr. Shedd does now.

Question. What about Beecher's sermons on "Evolu
tion"?

Answer. Beecher's sermons on "Evolution" will do good.
Millions of people believe that Mr. Beecher knows at least
as much as the other preachers, and if he regards the
atonement as a dogma with a mistake for a foundation,
they may conclude that the whole system is a mistake.
But whether Mr. Beecher is mistaken or not, people know
that honesty is a good thing, that gratitude is a virtue, that
industry supports the world, and that whatever they be
lieve about religion they are bound by every conceivable
obligation to be just and generous. Mr. Beecher can no
more succeed in reconciling science and religion, than he
could in convincing the world that triangles and circles
are exactly the same. There is the same relation between
science and religion that there is between astronomy and
astrology, between alchemy and chemistry, between ortho
doxy and common sense.

Question. Have you read Miss Cleveland's book ? She
condemns George Eliot's poetry on the ground that it has
no faith in it, nothing beyond. Do you imagine she
would condemn Burns or Shelley for that reason ?

Answer. I have not read Miss Cleveland's book; but,
if the author condemns the poetry of George Eliot, she has
made a mistake. There is no poem in our language more
beautiful than " The Lovers, " and none loftier or purer
than "The Choir Invisible." There is no poetry in the
"beyond. " The poetry is here — here in this world, where

240 INTERVIEWS.

love is in the heart. The poetry of the beyond is too far
away, a little too general. Shelley's " Skylark" was in our
sky, the daisy of Burns grew on our ground, and between
that lark and that daisy is room for all the real poetry of

the earth. — Evening Record, Boston, Mass., 1885.

INTERVIEWING, POLITICS AND SPIRITUALISM.

Question. What is your opinion of the peculiar institu
tion of American journalism known as interviewing ?

Answer. If the interviewers are fair, if they know how
to ask questions of a public nature, if they remember what
is said, or write it at the time, and if the interviewed
knows enough to answer questions in a way to amuse or
instruct the public, then interviewing is a blessing. But
if the representative of the press asks questions, either
impudent or unimportant, and the answers are like the
questions, then the institution is a failure. When the
journalist fails to see the man he wishes to interview, or
when the man refuses to be interviewed, and thereupon the
aforesaid journalist writes up an interview, doing the talk
ing for both sides, the institution is a success. Such
interviews are always interesting, and, as a rule, the ques
tions are to the point and the answers perfectly responsive.
There is probably a little too much interviewing, and too
many persons are asked questions upon subjects about
which they know nothing. Mr. Smith makes some money
in stocks or pork, visits London, and remains in that city
for several weeks. On his return he is interviewed as to
the institutions, laws and customs of the British Empire.
Of course such an interview is exceedingly instructive.
Lord Affanaff lands at the dock in North River, is driven
to a hotel in a closed carriage, is interviewed a few
minutes after by a representative of the Herald as to his
view of the great Republic based upon what he has seen.
Such an interview is also instructive. Interviews with

INTERVIEWS. 241

candidates as to their chances of election is another favorite
way of finding out their honest opinion, but people who
rely on those interviews generally lose their bets. The
most interesting interviews are generally denied. I have
been expecting to see an interview with the Rev. Dr.
Leonard on the medicinal properties of champagne and
toast, or the relation between old ale and modern theology,
and as to whether prohibition prohibits the Prohibitionists.

Question. Have you ever been misrepresented in inter
views ?

Answer. Several times. As a general rule, the clergy
have selected these misrepresentations when answering me.
I never blamed them, because it is much easier to answer
something that I did not say. Most reporters try to give
my real words, but it is difficult to remember. They try
to give the substance, and in that way change or destroy
the sense. You remember the Frenchman who translated
Shakespeare's great line in Macbeth — " Out, brief candle ! "
— into "Short candle, go out!" Another man, trying to
give the last words of Webster — " I still live " — said " I
aint dead yit." So that when they try to do their best
they often make mistakes. Now and then interviews
appear not one word of which I ever said, and sometimes
when I really had an interview, another one has appeared.
But generally the reporters treat me well, and most of them
succeed in telling about what I said. Personally I have
no cause for complaint.

Question. What do you think of the administration of
President Cleveland ?

Answer. I know but very little about it. I suppose that
he is doing the best he can. He appears to be carrying
out in good faith the principles laid down in the platform
on which he was elected. He is having a hard road to
travel. To satisfy an old Democrat and a new mugwump
is a difficult job. Cleveland appears to be the owner of

24* INTERVIEWS.

himself — appears to be a man of great firmness and force
of character. The best thing that I have heard about him
is that he went fishing on Sunday. We have had so much
mock morality, dude deportment and hypocritical respecta
bility in public office, that a man with courage enough to
enjoy himself on Sunday is a refreshing and healthy
example. All things considered, I do not see but that
Cleveland is doing well enough. The attitude of the
administration toward the colored people is manly and
fair so far as I can see.

Question. Are you still a Republican in political belief ?

Answer. I believe that this is a Nation. I believe in the
equality of all men before the law, irrespective of race,
religion or color. I believe that there should be a dollar's
worth of silver in a silver dollar. I believe in a free ballot
and a fair count. I believe in protecting those industries
and those only, that need protection. I believe in unre
stricted coinage of gold and silver. I believe in the rights
of the State, the rights of the citizen, and the sovereignty of
the Nation. I believe in good times, good health, good
crops, good prices, good wages, good food, good clothes and
in the absolute and unqualified liberty of thought. If such
belief makes a Republican, then that is what I am.

Question. Do you approve of John Sherman's policy in
the present campaign with reference to the bloody shirt,
which reports of his speeches show that he is waving ?

Answer. I have not read Senator Sherman's speech. It
seems to me that there is a better feeling between the North
and South than ever before — better than at any time since
the Revolutionary war. I believe in cultivating that feel
ing, and in doing and saying what we can to contribute to
its growth. We have hated long enough and fought
enough. The colored people never have been well treated,
but they are being better treated now than ever before. It
takes a long time to do away with prejudices that were

INTERVIEWS. 243

based upon religion and rascality — that is to say, inspira
tion and interest. We must remember that slavery was the
crime of the whole country. Now, if Senator Sherman has
made a speech calculated to excite the hatreds and preju
dices of the North and South, I think that he has made a
mistake. I do not say that he has made such a speech,
because I have not read it. The war is over — it ended at
Appomattox. Let us hope that the bitterness born of the
conflict died out forever at Riverside. The people are
tired almost to death of the old speeches. They have been
worn out and patched, and even the patches are threadbare.
The Supreme Court decided the Civil Rights Bill to be
unconstitutional, and the Republican party submitted. I
regarded the decision as monstrous, but the Republican
party when in power said nothing and did nothing. I
most sincerely hope that the Democratic party will protect
the colored people at least as well as we did when we were
in power. But I am out of politics and intend to keep
politics out of me.

Question. We have been having the periodical revival of
interest in Spiritualism. What do you think of "Spiritual
ism," as it is popularly termed?

Answer. I do not believe in the supernatural. One who
does not believe in gods would hardly believe in ghosts. I
am not a believer in any of the " wonders " and "miracles "
whether ancient or modern. There may be spirits, but I
do not believe there are. They may communicate with
some people, but thus far they have been successful in
avoiding me. Of course, I know nothing for certain on
the subject. I know a great many excellent people who
are thoroughly convinced of the truth of Spiritualism.
Christians laugh at the " miracles " to-day, attested by
folks they know, but believe the miracles of long ago,
attested by folks that they did not know. This is one of
the contradictions in human nature. Most people are will-

244 INTERVIEWS.

ing to believe that wonderful things happened long ago
and will happen again in the far future; with them the
present is the only time in which nature behaves herself
with becoming sobriety.

In old times nature did all kinds of juggling tricks, and
after a long while will do some more, but now she is attend
ing strictly to business, depending upon cause and effect.

Question. Who, in your opinion, is the greatest leader of
the " opposition " yclept the Christian religion ?

Answer. I suppose that Mr. Beecher is the greatest man
in the pulpit, but he thinks more of Darwin than he does
of David and has an idea that the Old Testament is just a
little too old. He has put evolution in the place of the
atonement — has thrown away the Garden of Eden, snake,
apples and all, and is endeavoring to save enough of the
orthodox wreck to make a raft. I know of no other genius
in the pulpit. There are plenty of theological doctors and
bishops and all kinds of titled humility in the sacred pro
fession, but men of genius are scarce. All the ministers,
except Messrs. Moody and Jones, are busy explaining
away the contradictions between inspiration and demon
stration.

Question. What books would you recommend for the
perusal of a young man of limited time and culture with
reference to helping him in the development of intellect and
good character ?

Answer. The works of Darwin, Ernst Haeckel, Draper's
"Intellectual Development of Europe," Buckle's "History
of Civilization in England," Lecky's " History of European
Morals," Voltaire's "Philosophical Dictionary," Biiclmer's
"Force and Matter," "The History of the Christian Relig
ion," by Waite; Paine's "Age of Reason," D'Holbach's
"System of Nature," and, above all, Shakespeare. Do not
forget Burns, Shelley, Dickens and Hugo.

Question. Will you lecture the coming winter?

INTERVIEWS. 345

Answer. Yes, about the same as usual. Woe is me if I
preach not my gospel.

Question. Have you been invited to lecture in Europe ?
If so do you intend to accept the " call " ?

Answer. Yes, often. The probability is that I shall go
to England and Australia. I have not only had invitations
but most excellent offers from both countries. There is,
however, plenty to do here. This is the best country in
the world and our people are eager to hear the other
side.

The old kind of preaching is getting superannuated. It
lags superfluous in the pulpit. Our people are outgrowing
the cruelties and absurdities of the ancient Jews. The idea
of hell has become shocking and vulgar. Eternal punish
ment is eternal injustice. It is infinitely infamous. Most
ministers are ashamed to preach the doctrine, and the
congregations are ashamed to hear it preached. It is the

essence Of Savagery. — Plain Dealer, Cleveland, Ohio, September 5, 1885.

MY BELIEF.

Question. It is said that in the past four or five years
you have changed or modified your views upon the subject
of religion ; is this so ?

Answer. It is not so. The only change, if that can be call'
ed a change, is, that I am more perfectly satisfied that I am
right — satisfied that what is called orthodox religion is a
simple fabrication of mistaken men ; satisfied that there is
no such thing as an inspired book and never will be ; satis
fied that a miracle never was and never will be performed :
satisfied that no human being knows whether there is a
God or not, whether there is another life or not ; satisfied
that the scheme of atonement is a mistake, that the inno
cent cannot, by suffering for the guilty, atone for the guilt ;
satisfied that the doctrine that salvation depends on belief,
is cruel and absurd ; satisfied that the doctrine of eternal

246 INTERVIEWS.

punishment is infamously false ; satisfied that superstition
is. of no use to the human race ; satisfied that humanity is
the only true and real religion.

No, I have not modified my views. I detect new absurdi
ties every day in the popular belief. Every day the whole
thing becomes more and more absurd. Of course there are
hundreds and thousands of most excellent people who be
lieve in orthodox religion ; people for whose good qualities
I have the greatest respect ; people who have good ideas
on most other subjects ; good citizens, good fathers, hus
bands, wives and children — good in spite of their religion.
I do not attack people. I attack the mistakes of people.
Orthodoxy is getting weaker every day.

Question. Do you believe in the existence of a Supreme
Being ?

Answer. I do not believe in any Supreme personality
or in any Supreme Being who made the universe and gov
erns nature. I do not say that there is no such Being — all
I say is that I do not believe that such a Being exists. I
know nothing on the subject, except that I know that I do
not know and that nobody else knows. But if there be
such a Being, he certainly never wrote the Old Testament.
You will understand my position. I do not say that a Su
preme Being does not exist, but I do say that I do not be
lieve such a Being exists. The universe — embracing all
that is — all atoms, all stars, each grain of sand and all the
constellations, each thought and dream of animal and man,
all matter and all force, all doubt and all belief, all virtue and
all crime, all joy and all pain, all growth and all decay — is
all there is. It does not act because it is moved from without.
It acts from within. It is actor and subject, means and
end.

It is infinite ; the infinite could not have been created.
It is indestructible and that which cannot be destroyed was
not created. I am a Pantheist.

INTERVIEWS. 247

Question. Don't you think the belief of the Agnostic is
more satisfactory to the believer than that of the Atheist ?

Answer. There is no difference. The Agnostic is an Athe
ist. The Atheist is an Agnostic. The Agnostic says : " I do
not know, but I do not believe there is any God." The Atheist
says the same. The orthodox Christian says he knows there
is a God ; but we know that he does not know. He sim
ply believes. He cannot know. The Atheist cannot know
that God does not exist.

Question. Haven't you just the faintest glimmer of a hope
that in some future .state you will meet and be reunited to
those who are dear to you in this ?

Answer. I have no particular desire to be destroyed. I
am willing to go to heaven if there be such a place, and en
joy myself for ever and ever. It would give me infinite
satisfaction to know that all mankind are to be happy for
ever. Infidels love their wives and children as well as
Christians do theirs. I have never said a word against
heaven — never said a word against the idea of immortality.
On the contrary, I have said all I could truthfully say in
favor of the idea that we shall live again. I most sincerely
hope that there is another world, better than this, where
all the broken ties of love will be united. It is the other
place I have been fighting. Better that all of us should
sleep the sleep of death forever than that some should
suffer pain forever. If in order to have a heaven there must
be a hell, then I say away with them both. My doctrine
puts the bow of hope over every grave ; my doctrine takes
from every mother's heart the fear of hell. No good man
would enjoy himself in heaven with his friends in hell.
No good God could enjoy himself in heaven with millions
of his poor, helpless mistakes in hell. The orthodox idea
of heaven — with God an eternal inquisitor, a few heartless
angels and some redeemed orthodox, all enjoying them
selves, while the vast multitude will weep in the rayless

248 INTERVIEWS.

gloom of God's eternal dungeon — is not calculated to make
man good or happy. I am doing what I can to civilize the
churches, humanize the preachers and get the fear of hell
out of the human heart. In this business I am meeting

With great SUCCeSS. — Philadelphia Times, September 25, 1885.

v
SOME LIVE TOPICS.

Question. Shall you attend the Albany Freethought Con
vention ?

Answer. I have agreed to be present not only, but to
address the convention, on Sunday, the i3th of September.
I am greatly gratified to know that the interest in the ques
tion of intellectual liberty is growing from year to year.
Everywhere I go it seems to be the topic of conversation.
No matter upon what subject people begin to talk, in a little
while the discussion takes a religious turn, and people who
a few moments before had not the slightest thought of say
ing a word about the churches, or about the Bible, are giv
ing their opinions in full. I hear discussions of this kind
in all the public conveyances, at the hotels, on the piazzas
at the seaside — and they are not discussions in which I take
any part, because I rarely say anything upon these ques
tions except in public, unless I am directly addressed.

There is a general feeling that the church has ruled the
world long enough. People are beginning to see that no
amount of eloquence, or faith, or erudition, or authority,
can make the records of barbarism satisfactory to the heart
and brain of this century. They have also found that a
falsehood in Hebrew is no more credible than in plain Eng
lish. People at last are beginning to be satisfied that cruel
laws were never good laws, no matter whether inspired or
uninspired. The Christian religion, like every other relig
ion depending upon inspired writings, is wrecked upon the
facts of nature. So long as inspired writers confined them-

INTERVIEWS. 249

selves to the supernatural world ; so long as they talked
about angels and Gods and heavens and hells ; so long as
they described only things that man has never seen, and
never will see, they were safe, not from contradiction, but
from demonstration. But these writings had to have a
foundation, even for their falsehoods, and that foundation
was in Nature. The foundation had to be something about
which somebody knew something, or supposed they knew
something. They told something about this world that
agreed with the then general opinion. Had these inspired
writers told the truth about Nature — had they said that the
world revolved on its axis, and made a circuit about the sun
— they could have gained no credence for their statements
about other worlds. They were forced to agree with their
contemporaries about this world, and there is where they
made the fundamental mistake. Having grown in knowl
edge, the world has discovered that these inspired men knew
nothing about this earth ; that the inspired books are filled
with mistakes — not only mistakes that we can contradict,
but mistakes that we can demonstrate to be mistakes. Had
they told the truth in their day, about this earth, they
would not have been believed about other worlds, because
their contemporaries would have used their own knowledge
about this world to test the knowledge of these inspired
men. We pursue the same course ; and what we know about
this world we use as the standard, and by that standard we
have found that the inspired men knew nothing about
Nature as it is. Finding that they were mistaken about
this world, we have no confidence in what they have said
about another. Every religion has had its philosophy about
this world, and every one has been mistaken. As education
becomes general, as scientific modes are adopted, this will
become clearer and clearer, until "ignorant as inspiration"
will be a comparison.

Question. Have you seen the memorial to the New York

250 INTERVIEWS.

Legislature, to be presented this winter, asking for the re
peal of such laws as practically unite church and state?

Answer. I have seen a memorial asking that church prop
erty be taxed like other property ; that no more money
should be appropriated from the public treasury for the sup
port of institutions managed by and in the interest of secta
rian denominations; for the repeal of all laws compelling
the observance of Sunday as a religious day. Such memo
rials ought to be addressed to the Legislature of all the States.
The money of the public should only be used for the benefit
of the public. Public money should not be used for what a
few gentlemen think is for the benefit of the public. Per
sonally, I think it would be for the benefit of the public to
have Infidel or scientific — which is the same thing — lectures
delivered in every town, in every State, on every Sunday ;
but knowing that a great many men disagree with me on
this point, I do not claim that such lectures ought to be paid
for with public money. The Methodist Church ought not
to be sustained by taxation, nor the Catholic, nor any other
church. To relieve their property from taxation is to ap
propriate money, to the extent of that tax, for the support
of that church. Whenever a burden is lifted from one piece
of property, it is distributed over the rest of the property of
the State, and to release one kind of property is to increase
the tax on all other kinds.

There was a time when people really supposed that
churches were saving souls from the eternal wrath of a God
of infinite love. Being engaged in such a philanthropic
work, and at that time nobody having the courage to deny
it — the church being all-powerful — all other property was
taxed to support the church; but now the more civilized
part of the community, being satisfied that a God of infinite
love will not be eternally unjust, feel as though the church
should support herself. To exempt the church from taxa
tion is to pay a part of the priest's salary. The Catholic

INTERVIEWS. 251

now objects to being taxed to support a school in which his
religion is not taught. He is not satisfied with the school
that says nothing on the subject of religion. He insists that
it is an outrage to tax him to support a school where the
teacher simply teaches what he knows. And yet this same
Catholic wants his church exempted from taxation, and the
tax of an Atheist or of a Jew increased, when he teaches in
his untaxed church that the Atheist and Jew will both be
eternally damned ! Is it possible for impudence to go fur
ther?

I insist that no religion should be taught in any school
supported by public money ; and by religion I mean super
stition. Only that should be taught in a school that some
body can learn and that somebody can know. In my judg
ment, every church should be taxed precisely the same as
other property. The church may claim that it is one of the
instruments of civilization and therefore should be exempt.
If you exempt that which is useful, you exempt every trade
and every profession. In my judgment, theatres have done
more to civilize mankind than churches; that is to sa}7,
theatres have done something to civilize mankind — churches
nothing. The effect of all superstition has been to render
man barbarous. I do not believe in the civilizing effects of
falsehood.

There was a time when ministers were supposed to be in
the employ of God, and it was thought that God selected
them with great care — that their profession had something
sacred about it. These ideas are no longer entertained by
sensible people. Ministers should be paid like other profes
sional men, and those who like their preaching should pay
for the preach. They should depend, as actors do, upon
their popularity, upon the amount of sense, or nonsense,
that they have for sale. They should depend upon the
market like other people, and if people do not want to hear
sermons badly enough to build churches and pay for them,

252 INTERVIEWS.

and pay the taxes on them, and hire the preacher, let the
money be diverted to some other use. The pulpit should no
longer be a pauper. I do not believe in carrying on any
business with the contribution box. All the sectarian insti
tutions ought to support themselves. There should be no
Methodist or Catholic or Presbyterian hospitals or or
phan asylums. All these should be supported by the State.
There is no such thing as Catholic charity, or Methodist
charity. Charity belongs to humanity, not to any particu
lar form of faith or religion. You will find as charitable
people who never heard of religion, as you can find in any
church. The State should provide for those who ought to
be provided for. A few Methodists beg of everybody they
meet — send women with subscription papers, asking money
from all classes of people, and nearly everybody gives some
thing from politeness, or to keep from being annoyed ; and
when the institution is finished, it is pointed at as the re
sult of Methodism.

Probably a majority of the people in this country suppose
that there was no charity in the world until the Christian
religion was founded. Great men have repeated this false
hood, until ignorance and thoughtlessness believe it. There
were orphan asylums in China, in India, and in Egypt,
thousands of years before Christ was born ; and there cer
tainly never was a time in the history of the whole world
when there was less charity in Europe than during the cen
turies when the Church of Christ had absolute power.
There were hundreds of Mohammedan asylums before
Christianity had built ten in the entire world.

All institutions for the care of unfortunate people should
be secular — should be supported by the State. The money
for the purpose should be raised by taxation, to the end that
the burden may be borne by those able to bear it. As it is
now, most of the money is paid, not by the rich, but by the
generous, and those most able to help their needy fellow-

INTERVIEWS. 253

citizens are the very ones who do nothing. If the money
is raised by taxation, then the burden will fall where it
ought to fall, and these institutions will no longer be sup
ported by the generous and emotional, and the rich and
stingy will no longer be able to evade the duties of citizen
ship and of humanity.

Now, as to the Sunday laws, we know that they are only
spasmodically enforced. Now and then a few people are
arrested for selling papers or cigars. Some unfortunate
barber is grabbed by a policeman because he has been caught
shaving a Christian, Sunday morning. Now and then
some poor fellow with a hack, trying to make a dollar or
two to feed his horses, or to take care of his wife and child
ren, is arrested as though he were a murderer. But in a few
days the public are inconvenienced to that degree that the
arrests stop and business goes on in its accustomed channels,
Sunday and all.

Now and then society becomes so pious, so virtuous, that
people are compelled to enter saloons by the back door ;
others are compelled to drink beer with the front shutters
up; but otherwise the stream that goes down the thirsty
throats is unbroken. The ministers have done their best to
prevent all recreation on the Sabbath. They would like to
stop all the boats on the Hudson, and on the sea — stop all
the excursion trains. They would like to compel every
human being that lives in the city of New York to remain
within its limits twenty-four hours each Sunday. They
hate the parks ; they hate music ; they hate anything that
keeps a man away from church. Most of the churches are
empty during the summer, and now most of the ministers
leave themselves, and give over the entire city to the Devil
and his emissaries. And yet if the ministers had their way,
there would be no form of human enjoyment except prayer,
signing subscription papers, putting money in contribution
boxes, listening to sermons, reading the cheerful histories

254 INTERVIEWS.

of the Old Testament, imagining the joys of heaven and the
torments of hell. The church is opposed to the theatre, is
the enemy of the opera, looks upon dancing as a crime,
hates billiards, despises cards, opposes roller-skating, and
even entertains a certain kind of prejudice against croquet.

Question. Do you think that the orthodox church gets
its ideas of the Sabbath from the teachings of Christ ?

Answer. I do not hold Christ responsible for these idiotic
ideas concerning the Sabbath. He regarded the Sabbath
as something made for man — which was a very sensible
view. The holiest day is the happiest day. The most
sacred day is the one in which have been done the most
good deeds. There are two reasons given in the Bible for
keeping the Sabbath. One is that God made the world in
six days, and rested on the seventh. Now that all the
ministers admit that he did not make the world in six days,
but that he made it in six " periods, " this reason is no
longer applicable. The other reason is that he brought
the Jews out of Egypt with a " mighty hand. " This may
be a very good reason still for the observance of the Sabbath
by the Jews, but the real Sabbath, that is to say, the day to
be commemorated, is our Saturday, and why should we com
memorate the wrong day ? That disposes of the second
reason.

Nothing can be more inconsistent than the theories and
practice of the churches about the Sabbath. The cars run
Sundays, and out of the profits hundreds of ministers are
supported. The great iron and steel works fill with smoke
and fire the Sabbath air, and the proprietors divide the
profits with the churches. The printers of the city are
busy Sunday afternoons and evenings, and the presses
during the nights, so that the sermons of Sunday can
reach the heathen on Monday. The servants of the rich
are denied the privileges of the sanctuary. The coachman
sits on the box out-doors, while his employer kneels in

INTERVIEWS. 355

church preparing himself for the heavenly chariot. The
iceman goes about on the holy day, keeping believers cool,
they knowing at the same time that he is making it hot for
himself in the world to come. Christians cross the Atlantic,
knowing that the ship will pursue its way on the Sabbath.
They write letters to their friends knowing that they will
be carried in violation of Jehovah's law, by wicked men.
Yet they hate to see a pale-faced sewing girl enjoying a
few hours by the sea ; a poor mechanic walking in the
fields ; or a tired mother watching her children playing on
the grass. Nothing ever was, nothing ever will be, more
utterly absurd and disgusting than a Puritan Sunday.
Nothing ever did make a home more hateful than the strict
observance of the Sabbath. It fills the house with hypocrisy
and the meanest kind of petty tyranny. The parents look
sour and stern, the children sad and sulky. They are com
pelled to talk upon subjects about which they feel no
interest, or to read books that are thought good only be
cause they are stupid.

Question. What have you to say about the growth of
Catholicism, the activity of the Salvation Army, and the
success of revivalists like the Rev. Samuel Jones? Is
Christianity really gaining a strong hold on the masses?

Answer. Catholicism is growing in this country, and it is
the only country on earth in which it is growing. Its
growth here depends entirely upon immigration, not upon
intellectual conquest. Catholic emigrants who leave their
homes in the Old World because they have never had any
liberty, and who are Catholics for the same reason, add to
the number of Catholics here, but their children's children
will not be Catholics. Their children will not be very
good Catholics, and even these immigrants themselves, in a
few years, will not grovel quite so low in the presence of a
priest. The Catholic Church is gaining no ground in
Catholic countries.

256 INTERVIEWS.

The Salvation Army is the result of two things — the
general belief in what are known as the fundamentals of
Christianity and the heartlessness of the church. The
church in England — that is to say, the Church of England —
having succeeded — that is to say, being supported by gen
eral taxation — that is to say, being a successful, well-fed
parasite — naturally neglected those who did not in any
way contribute to its support. It became aristocratic.
Splendid churches were built ; younger sons with good
voices were put in the pulpits ; the pulpit became the asy
lum for aristocratic mediocrity, and in that way the Church
of England lost interest in the masses and the masses lost
interest in the Church of England. The neglected poor,
who really had some belief in religion, and who had not
been absolutely petrified by form and patronage, were
ready for the Salvation Army. They were not at home in
the church. They could not pay. They preferred the
freedom of the street. They preferred to attend a church
where rags were no objection. Had the church loved and
labored with the poor the Salvation Army never would
have existed. These people are simply giving their idea
of Christianity, and in their way endeavoring to do what
they consider good. I don't suppose the Salvation Army
will accomplish much. To improve mankind you must
change conditions. It is not enough to work simply upon
the emotional nature. The surroundings must be such as
naturally produce virtuous actions. If we are to believe
recent reports from London, the Church of England, even
with the assistance of the Salvation Army, has accom
plished but little. It would be hard to find any savage
country with less morality. You would search long in
the jungles of Africa to find greater depravity.

I account for revivalists like the Rev. Samuel Jones in the
same way. There is in every community an ignorant
class — what you might call a literal class — who believe in

INTERVIEWS. 257

the real blood atonement; who believe in heaven and hell,
and harps and gridirons ; who have never had their faith
weakened by reading commentators or books harmonizing
science and religion. They love to hear the good old doc
trine ; they want hell described ; they want it described so
that they can hear the moans and shrieks ; they want
heaven described ; they want to see God on a throne, and
they want to feel that they are finally to have the pleasure
of looking over the battlements of heaven and seeing all
their enemies among the damned. The Rev. Mr. Hunger
has suddenly become a revivalist. According to the
papers he is sought for in every direction. His popu
larity seems to rest upon the fact that he brutally beat a
girl twelve years old because she did not say her prayers
to suit him. Muscular Christianity is what the ignorant
people want. I regard all these efforts — including those
made by Mr. Moody and Mr. Hammond — as evidence that
Christianity, as an intellectual factor, has almost spent its
force. It no longer governs the intellectual world.

Question. Are not the Catholics the least progressive ?
And are they not, in spite of their professions to the con
trary, enemies to republican liberty ?

Answer. Every church that has a standard higher than
human welfare is dangerous. A church that puts a book
above the laws and constitution of its country, that puts a
book above the welfare of mankind, is dangerous to human
liberty. Every church that puts itself above the legally
expressed will of the people is dangerous. Every church
that holds itself under greater obligation to a pope than to
a people is dangerous to human liberty. Every church
that puts religion above humanity — above the well-being
of man in this world — is dangerous. The Catholic Church
may be more dangerous, not because its doctrines are more
dangerous, but because, on the average, its members mor«
sincerely believe its doctrines, and because that church can

258 INTERVIEWS.

be hurled as a solid body in any given direction. For these
reasons it is more dangerous than other churches ; but its
doctrines are no more dangerous than those of the Protest
ant churches. The man who would sacrifice the well-being
of man to please an imaginary phantom that he calls God,
is also dangerous. The only safe standard is the well-being
of man in this world. Whenever this world is sacrificed
for the sake of another, a mistake has been made. The only
God that man can know is the aggregate of all beings ca
pable of suffering and of joy within the reach of his influ-
ence. To increase the happiness of such beings is to
worship the only God that man can know.

Question. What have you to say to the assertion of Dr.
Deems that there were never so many Christians as now ?

Answer. I suppose that the population of the earth is
greater now than at any other time within the historic
period. This being so, there may be more Christians, so-
called, in the world than there were a hundred years ago.
Of course, the reverend doctor, in making up his aggregate
of Christians, counts all kinds and sects — Unitarians, Uni-
versalists, and all the other " ans " and " ists " and " ics "
and " ites " and " ers." But Dr. Deems must admit that
only a few years ago most of the persons he now calls
Christians would have been burnt as heretics and Infidels.
Let us compare the average New York Christian with the
Christian of two hundred years ago. It is probably safe to
say that there is not now in the city of New York a genu
ine Presbyterian outside of an insane asylum. Probably
no one could be found who will to-day admit that he be
lieves absolutely in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith.
There is probably not an Episcopalian who believes in the
Thirty-nine Articles. Probably there is not an intelligent
minister in the city of New York, outside of the Catholic
Church, who believes that everything in the Bible is true.
Probably no clergyman, of any standing, would be willing

INTERVIEWS. 259

to take the ground that everything in the Old Testament
— leaving out the question of inspiration — is actually true.
Very few ministers now preach the doctrine of eternal
punishment. Most of them would be ashamed to utter that
brutal falsehood. A large majority of gentlemen who at
tend church take the liberty of disagreeing with the
preacher. They would have been very poor Christians two
hundred years ago. A majority of the ministers take the
liberty of disagreeing, in many things, with their Presby
teries and Synods. They would have been very poor
preachers two hundred years ago. Dr. Deems forgets that
most Christians are only nominally so. Very few believe
their creeds. Very few even try to live in accordance with
what they call Christian doctrines. Nobody loves his
enemies. No Christian when smitten on one cheek turns
the other. Most Christians do take a little thought for the
morrow. They do not depend entirely upon the providence
of God. Most Christians now have greater confidence in
the average life insurance company than in God — feel
easier when dying to know that they have a policy, through
which they expect the widow will receive ten thousand
dollars, than when thinking of all the Scripture promises.
Even church-members do not trust in God to protect their
own property. They insult heaven by putting lightning
rods on their temples. They insure the churches against
the act of God. The experience of man has shown the
wisdom of relying on something that we know something
about, instead of upon the shadowy supernatural. The poor
wretches to-day in Spain, depending upon their priests, die
like poisoned flies; die with prayers between their pallid
lips ; die in their filth and faith.

Question. What have you to say on the Mormon question ?

Answer. The institution of polygamy is infamous and
disgusting beyond expression. It destroj'S what we call,
and what all civilized people call, "the family." It pollutes

26O INTERVIEWS.

the fireside, and, above all, as Burns would say, " petrifies
the feeling." It is, however, one of the institutions of
Jehovah. It is protected by the Bible. It has inspiration
on its side. Sinai, with its barren, granite peaks, is a per
petual witness in its favor. The beloved of God practiced
it, and, according to the sacred word, the wisest man had, I
believe, about seven hundred wives. This man received his
wisdom directly from God. It is hard for the average Bible-
worshiper to attack this institution without casting a certain
stain upon his own book.

Only a few years ago slavery was upheld by the same
Bible. Slavery having been abolished, the passages in the
inspired volume upholding it have been mostly forgotten ;
but polygamy lives, and the polygamists, with great volu
bility, repeat the passages in their favor. We send our
missionaries to Utah, with their Bibles, to convert the Mor
mons.

The Mormons show, by these very Bibles, that God
is on their side. Nothing remains now for the missionaries
except to get back their Bibles and come home. The
preachers do not appeal to the Bible for the purpose of put
ting down Mormonism. They say:" Send the army." If
the people of this country could only be honest ; if they
would only admit that the Old Testament is but the record
of a barbarous people ; if the Samson of the nineteenth
century would not allow its limbs to be bound by the Delilah
of superstition, it could with one blow destroy this monster.
What shall we say of the moral force of Christianity, when
it utterly fails in the presence of Mormonism ? What shall
we say of a Bible that we dare not read to a Mormon as an
argument against legalized lust, or as an argument against
illegal lust ?

I am opposed to polygamy. I want it exterminated by
law ; but I hate to see the exterminators insist that God,
only a few thousand years ago, was as bad as the Mormons

INTERVIEWS. 26l

are to-day. In my judgment, such a God ought to be ex
terminated.

Question. What do you think of men like the Rev. Henry
Ward Beecher and the Rev. R. Heber Newton? Do they
deserve any credit for the course they have taken ?

Answer. Mr. Beecher is evidently endeavoring to shore
up the walls of the falling temple. He sees the cracks ; he
knows that the building is out of plumb ; he feels that the
foundation is insecure. Lies can take the place of stones
only so long as they are thoroughly believed. Mr. Beecher
is trying to do something to harmonize superstition and
science. He is reading between the lines. He has discov
ered that Darwin is only a later Saint Paul, or that Saint
Paul was the original Darwin. He is endeavoring to make
the New Testament a scientific text-book. Of course he
will fail. But his intentions are good. Thousands of people
will read the New Testament with more freedom than here
tofore. They will look for new meanings ; and he who
looks for new meanings will not be satisfied with the old
ones. Mr. Beecher, instead of strengthening the walls, will
make them weaker.

There is no harmony between religion and science. When
science was a child, religion sought to strangle it in the
cradle. Now that science has attained its youth, and super
stition is in its dotage, the trembling, palsied wreck says to
the athlete : " Let us be friends." It reminds me of the bar
gain the cock wished to make with the horse: "Let us
agree not to step on each other's feet." Mr. Beecher, having
done away with hell, substitutes annihilation. His doctrine
at present is that only a fortunate few are immortal, and that
the great mass return to dreamless dust. This, of course, is
far better than hell, and is a great improvement on the
orthodox view. Mr. Beecher cannot believe that God would
make such a mistake as to make men doomed to suffer
eternal pain. Why, I ask, should God give life to men

262 INTERVIEWS.

whom he knows are unworthy of life ? Why should he an
nihilate his mistakes ? Why should he make mistakes that
need annihilation ?

It can hardly be said that Mr. Beecher's idea is a new one.
It was taught, with an addition, thousands of years ago, in
India, and the addition almost answers my objection. The
old doctrine was that only the soul that bears fruit, only the
soul that bursts into blossom, will at the death of the body
rejoin the Infinite, and that all other souls — souls not hav
ing blossomed — will go back into low forms and make the
journey up to man once more, and should they then blossom
and bear fruit, will be held worthy to join the Infinite, but
should they again fail, they again go back ; and this process
is repeated until they do blossom, and in this way all souls
at last become perfect. I suggest that Mr. Beecher make
at least this addition to his doctrine.

But allow me to say that, in my judgment, Mr. Beecher
is doing great good. He may not convince many people
that he is right, but he will certainly convince a great many
people that Christianity is wrong.

Question. In what estimation do you hold Charles Watts
and Samuel Putnam, and what do you think of their labors
in the cause of Freethought ?

Answer. Mr. Watts is an extremely logical man, with a
direct and straightforward manner and mind. He has paid
great attention to what is called "Secularism." He thor
oughly understands organization, and he is undoubtedly one
of the strongest debaters in the field. He has had great
experience. He has demolished more divines than any man
of my acquaintance. I have read several of his debates. In
discussion he is quick, pertinent, logical, and, above all,
good natured.

There is not in all he says a touch of malice. He can
afford to be generous to his antagonists, because he is always
the victor, and is always sure of the victory. Last winter

INTERVIEWS. 263

wherever I went, I heard the most favorable accounts of
Mr. Watts. All who heard him were delighted.

Mr. Putnam is one of the most thorough believers in in
tellectual liberty in the world. He believes with all his
heart, is full of enthusiasm, ready to make any sacrifice, and
to endure any hardship. Had he lived a few years ago, he
would have been a martyr. He has written some of the
most stirring appeals to the Liberals of this country that I
have ever read. He believes that Freethought has a future ;
that the time is coming when the superstitions of the world
will either be forgotten, or remembered — some of them with
smiles — most of them with tears. Mr. Putnam, although
endowed with a poetic nature, with poetic insight, clings to
the known, builds upon the experience of man, and believes
in fancies only when they are used as the wings of a fact. I
have never met a man who appeared to be more thoroughly
devoted to the great cause of mental freedom. I have read
his books with great interest, and find in them many pages
filled with philosophy and pathos. I have met him often
and I never heard him utter a harsh word about any human
being. His good nature is as unfailing as the air. His
abilities are of the highest order. It is a positive pleasure
to meet him. He is so enthusiastic, so unselfish, so natural,
so appreciative of others, so thoughtful for the cause, and
so careless of himself, that he compels the admiration of
every one who really loves the just and true. — The Truth Seeker,

New York, September 5, 1885.

THE PRESIDENT AND SENATE.

Question, What have you to say with reference to the
respective attitudes of the President and Senate ?

Answer. I don't think there is any doubt as to the right
of the Senate to call on the President for information. Of
course that means for what information he has. When a
duty devolves upon two persons, one of them has no right

264 INTERVIEWS.

to withhold any facts calculated to throw any light on the
question that both are to decide. The President cannot
appoint any officer who has to be confirmed by the Senate;
he can simply nominate. The Senate cannot even suggest
a name; it can only pass upon the person nominated. If it
is called upon for counsel and advice, how can it give advice
without knowing the facts and circumstances? The Presi
dent must have a reason for wishing to make a change.
He should give that reason to the Senate without waiting to
be asked. He has assured the country that he is a civil
service reformer ; that no man is to be turned out because
he is a Republican, and no man appointed because he is a
Democrat. Now, the Senate has given the President an
opportunity to prove that he has acted as he has talked.
If the President feels that he is bound to carry out the civil
service law, ought not the Senate to feel in the same way ?
Is it not the duty of the Senate to see to it that the President
does not, with its advice and consent, violate the civil
service law? Is the consent of the Senate a mere matter of
form? In these appointments the President is not inde
pendent of or above the Senate ; they are equal, and each
has the right to be "honor bright" with the other, at least.
As long as this foolish law is unrepealed it must be
carried out. Neither party is in favor of civil service re
form, and never was. The Republican party did not carry
it out, and did not intend to. The President has the right
to nominate. Under the law as it is now, when the
President wants to appoint a clerk, or when one of his
secretaries wants one, four names are sent, and from these
four names a choice has to be made. This is clearly an
invasion of the rights of the Executive. If they have the
right to compel the President to choose from four, why not
from three, or two ? Why not name the one, and have done
with it? The law is worse than unconstitutional — it is
absurd.

INTERVIEWS. 265

But in this contest the Senate, in my judgment, is right.
In my opinion, by the time Cleveland goes out most of the
offices will be filled with Democrats. If the Republicans
succeed next time, I know, and everybody knows, that they
will never rest easy until they get the Democrats out.
They will shout "offensive partisanship." The truth is,
the theory is wrong. Every citizen should take an interest
in politics. A good man should not agree to keep silent
just for the sake of an office. A man owes his best thoughts
to his country. If he ought to defend his country in time
of war, and under certain circumstances give his life for it,
can we say that in time of peace he is under no obligation
to discharge what he believes to be a duty, if he happens to
hold an office? Must he sell his birthright for the sake of
being a doorkeeper? The whole doctrine is absurd and
never will be carried out.

Question, What do you think as to the presidental race ?

Answer. That is a good way off. I think the people can
hardly be roused to enthusiasm by the old names. Our
party must take another step forward. We cannot live on
what we have done ; we must seek power for the sake, not
of power, but for the accomplishment of a purpose. We
must reform the tariff. We must settle the question of
silver. We must have sense enough to know what the
country needs, and courage enough to tell it. By reform
ing the tariff, I mean protect that and that only that needs
protection — laws for the country and not for the few. We
want honest money ; we want a dollar's worth of gold in a
silver dollar, and a dollar's worth of silver in a gold dollar.
We want to make them of equal value. Bi-metallism does
not mean that eighty cents' worth of silver is worth one
hundred in gold. The Republican party must get back its
conscience and be guided by it in deciding the questions
that arise. Great questions are pressing for solution.
Thousands of working people are in want. Business is

266 INTERVIEWS.

depressed. The future is filled with clouds. What does
the Republican party propose ? Must we wait for mobs to
inaugurate reform ? Must we depend on police or states
men ? Should we wait and crush by brute force or should
we prevent ?

The toilers demand that eight hours should constitute a
day's work. Upon this question what does our party say ?
Labor saving machines ought to lighten the burdens of the
laborers. It will not do to say " over production" and keep on
inventing machines and refuse to shorten the hours. What
does our party say ? The rich can take care of themselves
if the mob will let them alone, and there will be no mob if
there is no widespread want. Hunger is a communist.
The next candidate of the Republican party must be big
enough and courageous enough to answer these questions.
If we find that kind of a candidate we shall succeed — if we

do not, We OUght not. — Chicago Inter-Ocean, February, 1886.

ATHEISM AND CITIZENSHIP.

Question. Have you noticed the decision of Mr. Nathaniel
Jarvis, Jr., clerk of the Naturalization Bureau of the Court
of Common Pleas, that an Atheist cannot become a citizen ?

Answer. Yes, but I do not think it necessary for a man
to be a theist in order to become or to remain a citizen
of this country. The various laws, from 1790 up to 1828,
provided that the person wishing to be naturalized might
make oath or affirmation. The first exception you will
find in the Revised Statutes of the United States passed
in 1873-74, section 2,165, as follows: — "An alien may be
admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the
following manner, and not otherwise: — First, he shall
declare on oath, before a Circuit or District Court of the
United States, etc." I suppose Mr. Jarvis felt it to be his
duty to comply with this section. In this section there is
nothing about affirmation — only the word " oath" is used —

INTERVIEWS. 267

and Mr. Jarvis came to the conclusion that an Atheist could
not take an oath, and, therefore, could not declare his in
tention legally to become a citizen of the United States.
Undoubtedly Mr. Jarvis felt it his duty to stand by the law
and to see to it that nobody should become a citizen of this
country who had not a well defined belief in the existence of
a being that he could not define and that no man has ever
been able to define. In other words, that he should be
perfectly convinced that there is a being " without body,
parts or passions," who presides over the destinies of
this world, and more especially those of New York in and
about that part known as City Hall Park.

Question. Was not Mr. Jarvis right in standing by the
law?

Answer. If Mr. Jarvis is right, neither Humboldt nor
Darwin could have become a citizen of the United States.
Wagiier, the greatest of musicians, not being able to take
an oath, would have been left an alien. Under this ruling
Haeckel, Spencer and Tyndall would be denied citizen
ship — that is to say, the six greatest men produced by the
human race in the nineteenth century, were and are unfit
to be citizens of the United States. Those who have placed
the human race in debt cannot be citizens of the Republic.
On the other hand, the ignorant wife beater, the criminal,
the pauper raised in the workhouse, could take the neces
sary oath and would be welcomed by New York "with arms
outstretched as she would fly."

Question. You have quoted one statute. Is there no
other applicable to this case ?

Answer. I am coming to that. If Mr. Jarvis will take
the pains to read not only the law of naturalization in
section 2,165 °f tne Revised Statutes of the United States,
but the very first chapter in the book, "Title I., " he will
find in the very first section this sentence: " The require
ment of any ' oath ' shall be deemed complied with by mak-

268 INTERVIEWS.

ing affirmation in official form." This applies to section
2,165. Of course an Atheist can affirm, and the statute
provides that wherever an oath is required affirmation may
be made.

Question. Did you read the recent action of Judge
O'Gorman, of the Superior Court, in refusing naturaliza
tion papers to an applicant because he had not read the
Constitution of the United States ?

Answer. I did. The United States Constitution is a very
important document, a good, sound document, but it is
talked about a great deal more than it is read. I'll venture
that you may commence at the Battery to interview mer
chants and other business men about the Constitution and
you will talk with a hundred before you will find one who

has ever read it. — New York Herald^ August 8, 1886.

THE LABOR QUESTION.

Question. What is your remedy, Colonel, for the labor
troubles of the day ?

Answer. One remedy is this: I should like to see the
laboring men succeed. I should like to see them have a
majority in Congress and with a President of their own.
I should like to see this so that they could satisfy themselves
how little, after all, can be accomplished by legislation.
The moment responsibility should touch their shoulders
they would become conservative. They would find that
making a living in this world is an individual affair, and
that each man must look out for himself. They would
soon find that the Government cannot take care of the
people. The people must support the Government.
Everything cannot be regulated by law. The factors en
tering into this problem are substantially infinite and be
yond the intellectual grasp of any human being. Perhaps
nothing in the world will convince the laboring man how
little can be accomplished by law until there is oppor-

INTERVIEWS. 269

tunity of trying. To discuss the question will do good,
so I am in favor of its discussion. To give the workingmeu
a trial will do good, so I am in favor of giving them a
trial.

Question. But you have not answered my question : I
asked you what could be done, and you have told me what
could not be done. Now, is there not some better organi
zation of society that will help in this trouble ?

Answer. Undoubtedly. Unless humanity is a failure,
society will improve from year to year and from age to age.
There will be, as the years go by, less want, less injustice,
and the gifts of nature will be more equally divided, but
there will never come a time when the weak can do as
much as the strong, or when the mentally weak can accom
plish as much as the intellectually strong. There will for
ever be inequality in society; but, in my judgment, the
time will come when an honest, industrious person need
not want. In my judgment, that will come, not through
governmental control, not through governmental slavery,
not through what is called Socialism, but through liberty
and through individuality. I can conceive of no greater
slavery than to have everything done by the Government.
I want free scope given to individual effort. In time some
things that governments have done will be removed. The
creation of a nobility, the giving of vast rights to corpora
tions, and the bestowment of privileges on the few will be
done away with. In other words, governmental interfer
ence will cease and man will be left more to himself. The
future will not do away with want by charity, which gen
erally creates more want than it alleviates, but by justice
and intelligence. Shakespeare says, " There is no dark
ness but ignorance, " and it might be added that ignorance

is the mother Of mOSt Suffering. — Tlie Enquirer, Cincinnati, Ohio.
September 30, 1886.

RAILROADS AND POLITICS.

Question. You are intimately acquainted with the great
railroad managers and the great railroad systems, and what
do you think is the great need of the railways to-day ?

Answer. The great need of the railroads to-day is more
business, more cars, better equipments, better pay for the
men and less gambling in Wall Street.

Question. Is it your experience that public men usually
ride on passes ?

Answer. Yes, whenever they can get them. Passes are
for the rich. Only those are expected to pay who can
scarcely afford it. Nothing shortens a journey, nothing
makes the road as smooth, nothing keeps down the dust and
keeps out the smoke like a pass.

Question. Don't you think that the pass system is an in
justice — that is, that ordinary travelers are taxed for the
man who rides on a pass ?

Answer. Certainly, those who pay, pay for those who do
not. This is one of the misfortunes of the obscure. It is
so with everything. The big fish live on the little ones.

Question. Are not parallel railroads an evil?

Answer. No, unless they are too near together. Compe
tition does some good and some harm, but it must exist.
All these things must be left to take care of themselves. If
the Government interferes it is at the expense of the man
hood and liberty of the people.

Answer. But wouldn't it be better for the people if the
railroads were managed by the Government as is the Post-
Office?

Answer. No, everything that individuals can do should
be left to them. If the Government takes charge of the

(270)

INTERVIEWS. 271

people they become weak and helpless. The people should
take charge of the Government. Give the folks a chance.

Question. In the next presidential contest what will be
the main issue ?

Answer. The Maine issue !

Question. Would you again refuse to take the stump for
Mr. Elaine if he should be renouiinated, and if so, why ?

Answer. I do not expect to take the stump for anybody.
Mr. Elaine is probably a candidate, and if he is nominated
there will be plenty of people on the stump — or fence — or
up a tree or somewhere in the woods.

Question. What are the most glaring mistakes of Cleve
land's administration ?

Answer. First, accepting the nomination. Second, taking
the oath of office. Third, not resigning. — Times star, Cincinnati,

September 30, 1886.

PROHIBITION.

Question. How much importance do you attach to the
present prohibition movement ?

Answer. No particular importance. I am opposed to
prohibition and always have been, and hope always to be.
I do not want the Legislature to interfere in these mat
ters. I do not believe that the people can be made tem
perate by law. Men and women are not made great and
good by the law. There is no good in the world that can
not be abused. Prohibition fills the world with spies and
tattlers, and, besides that, where a majority of the people
are not in favor of it the law will not be enforced ; and where
a majority of the people are in favor of it there is not much
need of the law. Where a majority are against it, juries
will violate their oath, and witnessess will get around the
truth, and the result is demoralization. Take wine and
malt liquors out of the world and we shall lose a vast deal
of good fellowship; the world would lose more than it

272 INTERVIEWS.

would gain. There is a certain sociability about wine
that I should hate to have taken from the earth. Strong
liquors the folks had better let alone. If prohibition
succeeds, and wines and malt liquors go, the next thing
will be to take tobacco away, and the next thing all other
pleasures, until prayer meetings will be the only places of
enjoyment.

Question. Do you care to say who your choice is for
Republican nominee for President in 1888?

Answer. I now promise that I will answer this question
either in May or June, 1888. At present my choice is not
fixed, and is liable to change at any moment, and I want
to leave it free, so that it can change from time to time, as
the circumstances change. I will, however, tell you pri
vately that I think it will probably be a new man, some
body on whom the Republicans can unite. I have made a
good many inquiries myself to find out who this man is to
be, but in every instance the answer has been determined
by the location in which the gentleman lived who gave me
the answer. Let us wait.

Question. Do you think the Republican party should
take a decided stand on the temperance issue ?

Answer. I do ; and that decided stand should be that
temperance is an individual question, something with
which the State and Nation have nothing to do. Temper
ance is a thing that the law cannot control. You might as
well try to control music, painting, sculpture, or meta
physics, as the question of temperance. As life becomes
more valuable, people will learn to take better care of it.
There is something more to be desired even than temper
ance, and that is liberty. I do not believe in putting out
the sun because weeds grow. I should rather have some
weeds than go without wheat and corn. The Republi
can party should represent liberty and individuality ; it
should keep abreast of the real spirit of the age;theRepub-

INTERVIEWS. 273

lican party ought to be intelligent enough to know that
progress has been marked not by the enactment of new

laws, but by the repeal Of Old Ones. — Evening Traveler •, Boston,
October, 1886.

HENRY GEORGE AND LABOR.

Question. It is said, Colonel Ingersoll, that you are for
Henry George ?

Answer. Of course ; I think it the duty of the Republi
cans to defeat the Democracy — a solemn duty — and I
believe that they have a chance to elect George ; that is to
say, an opportunity to take New York from their old
enemy. If the Republicans stand by George he will
succeed. All the Democratic factions are going to unite to
beat the workingmen. What a picture ! Now is the time
for the Republicans to show that all their sympathies are
not given to bankers, corporations and millionaires. They
were on the side of the slave — they gave liberty to millions.
Let them take another step and extend their hands to the
sons of toil.

My heart beats with those who bear the burdens of this
poor world.

Question. Do you not think that capital is entitled to
protection ?

Answer. I am in favor of accomplishing all reforms in a
legal and orderly way, and I want the laboring people of
this country to appeal to the ballot. All classes and all
interests must be content to abide the result.

I want the laboring people to show that they are intelli
gent enough to stand by each other. Henry George is their
natural leader. Let them be true to themselves by being
true to him. The great questions between capital and
labor must be settled peaceably. There is no excuse for
violence, and no excuse for contempt and scorn. No
country can be prosperous while the workers want and the
idlers waste. Those who do the most should have the

274 INTERVIEWS.

most. There is no civilized country, so far as I know, but
I believe there will be, and I want to hasten the day when
the map of the world will give the boundaries of that
blessed land.

Question. Do you agree with George's principles ? Do
you believe in socialism ?

Answer. I do not understand that George is a Socialist.
He is on the side of those that work — so am I. He wants
to help those that need help — so do I. The rich can
take care of themselves. I shed no tears over the miseries
of capital. I think of the men in mines and factories, in
huts, hovels and cellars; of the poor sewing women ; of
the poor, the hungry and the despairing. The world must
be made better through intelligence. I do not go with the
destroyers, with those that hate the successful, that hate
the generous, simply because they are rich. Wealth is
the surplus produced by labor, and the wealth of the world

should keep the WOrld from want. — New York Herald, October 13i
1896.

LABOR QUESTION AND SOCIALISM.

Question. What do you think of Henry George for
mayor ?

Answer. Several objections have been urged, not to
what Mr. George has done, but to what Mr. George has
thought, and he is the only candidate up to this time
against whom a charge of this character could be made.
Among other things, he seems to have entertained an idea
to the effect that a few men should not own the entire
earth ; that a child coming into the world has a right to
standing room, and that before he walks, his mother has a
right to standing room while she holds him. He insists
that if it were possible to bottle the air, and sell it as we
do mineral water, it would be hardly fair for the capitalists
of the world to embark in such a speculation, especially

INTERVIEWS. 275

where millions were allowed to die simply because they
were not able to buy breath at " pool prices." Mr. George
seems to think that the time will come when capital will
be intelligent enough and civilized enough to be just, and
when labor will be intelligent enough and civilized enough
to take care of itself. He has a dream that poverty and crime
and all the evils that go hand in hand with partial famine,
with lack of labor, and all the diseases born of living in huts
and cellars, born of poor food and poor clothing and of bad
habits, will disappear, and that the world will be really fit
to live in. He goes so far as to insist that men ought to
have more than twenty-three or twenty-four dollars a
month for digging coal, and that they ought not to be com
pelled to spend that money in the store or saloon of the
proprietor of the mine. He has also stated on several occa
sions that a man ought not to drive a street car for sixteen
or eighteen hours a day — that even a street-car driver
ought to have the privilege now and then of seeing his
wife, or at least one of the children, awake. And he has
gone so far as to say that a letter-carrier ought not to work
longer in each day for the United States than he would for
a civilized individual.

To people that imagine that this world is already per
fection ; that the condition of no one should be bettered
except their own, these ideas seem dangerous. A man who
has already amassed a million, and who has no fear for
the future, and who says: "I will employ the cheapest
labor and make men work as long as they can possibly en
dure the toil," will regard Mr. George as an impractical
man. It is very probable that all of us will be dead before
all of the theories of Mr. George are put in practice. Some
of them, however, may at some time benefit mankind ; and
so far as I am concerned, I am willing to help hasten the
day, although it may not come while I live. I do not
know that I agree with many of the theories of Mr. George.

276 INTERVIEWS.

I know that I do not agree with some of them. But there
is one thing in which I do agree with him, and that is,
in his effort to benefit the human race, in his effort to do
away with some of the evils that now afflict mankind. I
sympathize with him in his endeavor to shorten the hours
of labor, to increase the well-being of laboring men, to
give them better houses, better food, and in every way to
lighten the burdens that now bear upon their bowed backs.
It may be that very little can be done by law, except to
see that they are not absolutely abused ; to see that the
mines in which they work are supplied with air and with
means of escape in time of danger ; to prevent the deform
ing of children by forcing upon them the labor of men ; to
shorten the hours of toil, and to give all laborers certain
liens, above all other claims, for their work. It is easy to
see that in this direction something may be done by law.

Question. Colonel Ingersoll,are you a Socialist?

Answer. I am an Individualist instead of a Socialist. I
am a believer in individuality and in each individual tak
ing care of himself, and I want the Government to do just
as little as it can consistently with the safety of the nation,
and I want as little law as possible — only as much as will
protect life, reputation and property by punishing crim
inals and by enforcing honest contracts. But if a govern
ment gives privileges to a few, the few must not oppress
the many. The Government has no right to bestow any
privilege upon any man or upon any corporation, except
for the public good. That which is a special privilege to
the few, should be a special benefit to the many. And
whenever the privileged few abuse the privilege so that it
becomes a curse to the many, the privilege, whatever it is,
should be withdrawn. I do not pretend to know enough
to suggest a remedy for all the evils of society. I doubt
if one human mind could take into consideration the
almost infinite number of factors entering into such a

INTERVIEWS. 277

problem. And this fact that no one knows, is the excuse
for trying. While I may not believe that a certain theory
will work, still, if I feel sure it will do no harm, I am will
ing to see it tried.

Question. Do you think that Mr. George would make a
good mayor ?

Answer. I presume he would. He is . a thoughtful,
prudent man. His reputation for honesty has never, so
far as I know, been called in question. It certainly does
not take a genius to be mayor of New York. If so,
there have been some years when there was hardly a
mayor. I take it that a clear-headed, honest man, whose
only object is to do his duty, and with courage enough to
stand by his conscience, would make a good mayor of New
York or of any other city.

Question. Are you in sympathy with the workingmen
and their objects?

Answer. I am in sympathy with laboring men of all
kinds, whether they labor with hand or brain. The
Knights of Labor, I believe, do not allow a lawyer to be
come a member. I am somewhat wider in my sympathies.
No men in the world struggle more heroically ; no men in
the world have suffered more, or carried a heavier cross,
or worn a sharper crown of thorns, than those that have
produced what we call the literature of our race. So my
sympathies extend all the way from hod-carriers to sculp
tors ; from well-diggers to astronomers. If the objects of
the laboring men are to improve their condition without
injuring others; to have homes and firesides, and wives
and children ; plenty to eat, good clothes to wear ; to de
velop their minds, to educate their children — in short, to
become prosperous and civilized, I sympathize with them,
and hope they will succeed. I have not the slightest sym
pathy with those that wish to accomplish all these objects
through brute force. A Nihilist may be forgiven in Russia —

278 INTERVIEWS.

may even be praised in Russia ; a Socialist may be forgiven
in Germany ; and certainly a Home-ruler can be pardoned
in Ireland, but in the United States there is no place for
Anarchist, Socialist or Dynamiter. In this country the
political power has been fairly divided. Poverty has just
as many votes as wealth. No man can be so poor as not
to have a ballot ; no man is rich enough to have two ; and
no man can buy another vote, unless somebody is mean
enough and contemptible enough to sell; and if he does
sell his vote, he never should complain about the laws or
their administration. So the foolish and the wise are on an
equality, and the political power of this country is divided
so that each man is a sovereign.

Now, the laboring people are largely in the majority in
this country. If there are any laws oppressing them, they
should have them repealed. I want the laboring people —
and by the word " laboring " now, I include only the men
that they include by that word — to unite ; I want them to
show that they have the intelligence to act together, and
sense enough to vote for a friend. I want them to con
vince both the other great parties that they cannot be pur
chased. This will be an immense step in the right direc
tion.

I have sometimes thought that I should like to see the
laboring men in power, so that they would realize how
little, after all, can be done by law. All that any man
should ask, so far as the Government is concerned, is a
fair chance to compete with his neighbors. Personally, I
am for the abolition of all special privileges that are not
for the general good. My principal hope of the future is
the civilization of my race ; the development not only of
the brain, but of the heart. I believe the time will come
when we shall stop raising failures, when we shall know
something of the laws governing human beings. I believe
the time will come when we shall not produce deformed

INTERVIEWS.

persons, natural criminals. In other words, I think the
world is going to grow better and better. This may not
happen to this nation or to what we call our race, but it
may happen to some other race, and all that we do in the
right direction hastens that day and that race.

Question. Do you think that the old parties are about to
die?

Answer. It is very hard to say. The country is not old
enough for tables of mortality to have been calculated upon
parties. I suppose a party, like anything else, has a period
of youth, of manhood and decay. The Democratic party is
not dead. Some men grow physically strong as they grow
mentally weak. The Democratic party lived out of office,
and in disgrace, for twenty-five years, and lived to elect a
President. If the Democratic party could live on disgrace
for twenty-five years it now looks as though the Republi
can party, on the memory of its glory and of its wonderful
and unparalleled achievements, might manage to creep along

for a few years more. — New York World, October 26, 1886.

HENRY GEORGE AND SOCIALISM.

Question. What is your opinion of the result of the
election ?

Answer. I find many dead on the field whose faces I
recognize. I see that Morrison has taken a " horizontal "
position. Free trade seems to have received an exceedingly
black eye. Carlisle, in my judgment, one of the very best
men in Congress, has been defeated simply because he is a
free trader, and I suppose you can account for Kurd's
defeat in the same way. The people believe in protection
although they generally admit that the tariff ought to be
reformed. I believe in protecting " infant industries," but I
do not believe in rocking the cradle when the infant is seven
feet high and wears number twelve boots.

Question. Do you sympathize with the Socialists, or do

280 INTERVIEWS.

you think that the success of George would promote
socialism ?

Answer. I have said frequently that if I lived in Russia
I should in all probability be a Nihilist. I can conceive of
no government that would not be as good as that of Russia,
and I would consider no government far preferable to that
government. Any possible state of anarchy is better than
organized crime, because in the chaos of anarchy justice may
be done by accident, but in a government organized for the
perpetuation of slavery, and for the purpose of crushing
out of the human brain every noble thought, justice does
not live. In Germany I probably would be a Socialist — to
this extent, that I would want the political power honestly
divided among the people. I can conceive of no circum
stances in which I could support Bismarck. I regard Bis
marck as a projection of the Middle Ages, as a shadow that
has been thrown across the sunlight of modern civilization,
and in that shadow grow all the bloodless crimes. Now, in
Ireland, of course, I believe in home rule. In this country
I am an Individualist. The political power here is equally
divided. Poverty and wealth have the same power at the
ballot-box. Intelligence and ignorance are on an equality
here, simply because all men have a certain interest in the
government where they live. In this country there is no
excuse for nihilism or socialism. I hate above all things
the tyranny of a government. I do not want a government
to send a policeman along with me to keep me from buying
eleven eggs for a dozen. I will take care of myself. I
want the people to do everything they can do, and the Gov
ernment to keep its hands off, because if the Government
attends to all these matters the people lose manhood, and
in a little while become serfs, and there will arise some
strong mind and some powerful hand that will reduce them
to actual slavery. So I am in favor of personal liberty to
the largest extent. Whenever the Government grants privi-

INTERVIEWS. 28l

leges to the few, these privileges should be for the benefit of
the many, and when they cease to be for the benefit of the
many, they should be taken from the few and used by the
government itself for the benefit of the whole people. And
I want to see in this country the Government so adminis
tered that justice will be done to all as nearly as human
institutions can produce such a result. Now, I understand
that in any state of society there will be failures. We have
failures among the working people. We have had some
failures in Congress. I will not mention the names, because
your space is limited. There have been failures in the
pulpit, at the bar ; in fact, in every pursuit of life you will
find men who cannot make a living in that direction. I
presume we shall have failures with us for a great while; at
least until the establishment of the religion of the body,
when we shall cease to produce failures ; and I have faith
enough in the human race to believe that that time will
come, but I do not expect it during my life.

Question. What do you think of the income tax as a step
toward the accomplishment of what you desire ?

Answer. There are some objections to an income tax.
First, the espionage that it produces on the part of the
Government. Second, theamount of perjury that it annually
produces. Men hate to have their business inquired into if
they are not doing well. They often pay a very large tax
to make their creditors think they are prosperous. Others
by covering up, avoid the tax. But I will say this with
regard to taxation : The great desideratum is stability. If
we tax only the land, and that were the only tax, in a little
while every other thing, and the value of every other thing,
would adjust itself in relation to that tax, and perfect justice
would be the result. That is to say, if it were stable long
enough the burden would finally fall upon the right backs
in every department. The trouble with taxation is that it is
continually changing — not waiting for the adjustment that

282 INTERVIEWS.

will naturally follow provided it is stable. I think the end,
so far as land is concerned, could be reached by cumulative
taxation — that is to say, a man with a certain amount of
land paying a very small per cent., with more land, an in
creased per cent., and let that per cent, increase rapidly
enough so that no man could afford to hold land that he did
not have a use for. So I believe in cumulative taxation
with regard to any kind of wealth. Let a man worth ten
million dollars pay a greater per cent, than one worth one
hundred thousand, because he is able to pay it. The other
day a man was talking to me about having the dead pay the
expenses of the Government ; that whenever a man died
worth say five million dollars, one million should go to the
Government; that if he died worth ten million dollars,
three millions should go to the Government; if he died
worth twenty million dollars, eight million should go to the
Government, and so on. He said that in this way the
expenses of the Government could be borne by the dead.
I should be in favor of cumulative taxation upon legacies —
the greater the legacy, the greater the per cent, of tax
ation.

But, of course, I am not foolish enough to suppose that I
understand these questions. I am giving you a few guesses.
My only desire is to guess right. I want to see the people
of this world live for this world, and I hope the time will
come when a civilized man will understand that he cannot
be perfectly happy while anybody else is miserable; that a
perfectly civilized man could not enjoy a dinner knowing
that others were starving; that he could not enjoy the rich
est robes if he knew that some of his fellow-men in rags and
tatters were shivering in the blast. In other words, I want
to carry out the idea here that I have so frequently uttered
with regard to the other world ; that is, that no gentleman
angel could be perfectly happy knowing that somebody else
was in hell.

INTERVIEWS. 283

Question. What are the chances for the Republican party
in 1888 ?

Answer. If it will sympathize with the toilers, as it did with
the slaves ; if it will side with the needy ; if it will only take
the right side it will elect the next President. The poor
should not resort to violence ; the rich should appeal to the
intelligence of the working people. These questions can
not be settled by envy and scorn. The motto of both
parties should be : " Come, let us reason together." The
Republican party was the grandest organization that ever
existed. It was brave, intelligent and just. It sincerely
loved the right. A certificate of membership was a patent
of nobility. If it will only stand by the right again, its vic
torious banner will float over all the intelligent sons of toil.

— The Times, Chicago, Illinois, November 4, 1886.

REPLY TO THE REV. B. F. MORSE.*

This aquatic or web-footed theologian who expects to go
to heaven by diving is not worth answering. Nothing can
be more idiotic than to answer an argument by saying he
who makes it does not believe it. Belief has nothing to do
with the cogency or worth of an argument. There is an
other thing. This man, or rather this minister, says that I
attacked Christianity simply to make money. Is it possible
that, after preachers have had the field for eighteen hun
dred years, the way to make money is to attack the clergy.
Is this intended as a slander against me or the ministers ?

The trouble is that my arguments cannot be answered.
All the preachers in the world cannot prove that slavery is
better than liberty. They cannot show that all have not an

•At the usual weekly meeting of the Baptist ministers at the Publication Rooms yes
terday, the Rev. Dr. B. F. Morse read an essay on " Christianity vs. Materialism." His
contention was that all nature showed that design, rot evolution, was its origin.

In his concluding remarks Dr. Morse said that he knew from unquestionable authority,
that Robert G. Ingersoll did not believe what he uttered in his lectures, and that to get
out of a financial embarrassment he looked around for a money making scheme that
could be put into immediate execution. To lecture against Christianity was the most
rapid vvay of giving him the needed cash and. what was quite as acceptable to him, at the
same time, notoriety.

284 , INTERVIKWS.

equal right to think. They cannot show that all have not
an equal right to express their thoughts. They cannot
show that a decent God will punish a decent man for mak
ing the best guess he can. This is all there is about it. —

The Herald, New York, December 14, 1888.

INGERSOLL ON McGLYNN.

The attitude of the Roman Catholic Church in Dr. Mc-
Glynn's case is consistent with the history and constitution
of the Catholic Church — perfectly consistent with its ends,
its objects, and its means — and just as perfectly inconsist
ent with intellectual liberty and the real civilization of the
human race.

When a man becomes a Catholic priest, he has been
convinced that he ought not to think for himself upon
religious questions. He has become convinced that the
church is the only teacher — that he has a right to think
only to enforce its teachings. From that moment he is a
moral machine. The chief engineer resides at Rome, and
he gives his orders through certain assistant engineers until
the one is reached who turns the crank, and the machine
has nothing to do one way or the other. This machine is
paid for giving up his liberty by having machines under
him who have also given up theirs. While somebody else
turns his crank, he has the pleasure of turning a crank be
longing to somebody below him.

Of course, the Catholic Church is supposed to be the only
perfect institution on earth. All others are not only imper
fect, but unnecessary. All others have been made either
by man, or by the Devil, or by a partnership, and con
sequently cannot be depended upon for the civilization of
man.

The Catholic Church gets its power directly from God,
and is the only institution now in the world founded by God.
There was never any other, so far as I know, except polyg-

INTERVIEWS. 285

amy and slavery and a crude kind of monarchy, and they
have been, for the most part, abolished.

The Catholic Church must be true to itself. It must claim
everything, and get what it can. It alone is infallible. It
alone has all the wisdom of this world. It alone has the
right to exist. All other interests are secondary. To be a
Catholic is of the first importance. Human liberty is noth
ing. Wealth, position, food, clothing, reputation, happi
ness — all these are less than worthless compared with what
the Catholic Church promises to the man who will throw all
these away.

A priest must preach what his bishop tells him. A bishop
must preach what his archbishop tells him. The pope must
preach what he says God tells him.

Dr. McGlynn cannot make a compromise with the Catholic
Church. It never compromises when it is in the majority.
I do not mean by this that the Catholic Church is worse
than any other. All are alike in this regard. Every sect,
no matter how insignificant; every church, no matter how
powerful, asks precisely the same thing from every member
— that is to say, a surrender of intellectual freedom. The
Catholic Church wants the same as the Baptist, the Presby
terian, and the Methodist — it wants the whole earth. It is
ambitious to be the one supreme power. It hopes to see the
world upon its knees, with all its tongues thrust out for
wafers. It has the arrogance of humility and the ferocity
of universal forgiveness. In this respect it resembles every
other sect. Every religion is a system of slavery.

Of course, the religionists say that they do not believe in
persecution ; that they do not believe in burning and hang
ing and whipping or loading with chains a man simply be
cause he is an Infidel. They are willing to leave all this
with God, knowing that a being of infinite goodness will
inflict all these horrors and tortures upon an honest man
who differs with the church.

286 INTERVIEWS.

In case Dr. McGlynn is deprived of his priestly functions,
it is hard to say what effect it will have upon his church
and the labor party in this country.

So long as a man believes that a church has eternal joy
in store for him, so long as he believes that a church holds
within its hand the keys of heaven and hell, it will be hard
to make him trade off the hope of everlasting happiness for
a few good clothes and a little good food and higher wages
here. He finally thinks that, after all, he had better work
for less and go a little hungry, and be an angel forever.

I hope, however, that a good many people who have been
supporting the Catholic Church by giving tithes of the
wages of weariness will see, and clearly see, that Catholi
cism is not their friend ; that the church cannot and will not
support them ; that, on the contrary, they must support the
church. I hope they will see that all the prayers have to be
paid for, although not one has ever been answered. I hope
they will perceive that the church is on the side of wealth
and power, that the mitre is the friend of the crown, that
the altar is the sworn brother of the throne. I hope they
will finally know that the church cares infinitely more for
the money of the millionaire than for the souls of the poor.

Of course, there are thousands of individual exceptions.
I am speaking of the church as an institution, as a corpora
tion — and when I say the church, I include all churches.
It is said of corporations in general, that they have no soul,
and it may truthfully be said of the church that it has less
than any other. It lives on alms. It gives nothing for what
it gets. It has no sympathy. Beggars never weep over the
misfortunes of other beggars.

Nothing could give me more pleasure than to see the
Catholic Church on the side of human freedom; nothing
more pleasure than to see the Catholics of the world — those
who work and weep and toil — sensible enough to know that
all the money paid for superstition is worse than lost. I

INTERVIEWS. 287

wish they could see that the counting of beads, and the say
ing of prayers and celebrating of masses, and all the
kneelings and censer-swingings and fastings and bell-
ringing, amount to less than nothing — that all these things
tend only to the degradation of mankind. It is hard, I
know, to find an antidote for a poison that was mingled with
a mother's milk.

The laboring masses, so far as the Catholics are con
cerned, are filled with awe and wonder and fear about the
church. This fear began to grow while they were being
rocked in their cradles, and they still imagine that the
church has some mysterious power ; that it is in direct com
munication with some infinite personality that could, if it
desired, strike them dead, or damn their souls forever. Per
sons who have no such belief, who care nothing for popes
or priests or churches or heavens or hells or devils or
gods, have very little idea of the power of fear.

The old dogmas filled the brain with strange monsters.
The soul of the orthodox Christian gropes and wanders and
crawls in a kind of dungeon, where the strained eyes see
fearful shapes, and the frightened flesh shrinks from the
touch of serpents.

The good part of Christianity — that is to say, kindness,
morality — will never go down. The cruel part ought to go
down. And by the cruel part I mean the doctrine of eternal
punishment — of allowing the good to suffer for the bad —
allowing innocence to pay the debt of guilt. So the foolish
part of Christianity — that is to say, the miraculous — will go
down. The absurd part must perish. But there will be no
war about it as there was in France. Nobody believes
enough in the foolish part of Christianity now to fight for
it. Nobody believes with intensity enough in miracles to
shoulder a musket. There is probably not a Christian in New
York willing to fight for any story, no matter if the story
is so old that it is covered with moss. No mentally brave

288 INTERVIEWS.

and intelligent man believes in miracles, and no intelligent
man cares whether there was a miracle or not, for the rea
son that every intelligent man knows that the miraculous
has no possible connection with the moral. "Thou shalt
not steal," is just as good a commandment if it should turn
out that the flood was a drouth. "Thou shalt not murder,"
is a good and just and righteous law, and whether any
particular miracle was ever performed or not has nothing
to do with the case. There is no possible relation between
these things.

I am on the side not only of the physically oppressed, but
of the mentally oppressed. I hate those who put lashes on
the body, and I despise those who put the soul in chains.
In other words, I am in favor of liberty. I do not wish that
any man should be the slave of his fellow-men, or that the
human race should be the slaves of any god, real or imagin
ary. Man has the right to think for himself, to work for
himself, to take care of himself, to get bread for himself, to
get a home for himself. He has a right to his own opinion
about God, and heaven and hell ; the right to learn any art
or mystery or trade; the right to work for whom he will, for
what he will, and when he will.

The world belongs to the human race. There is to be no
war in this country on religious opinions, except a war of
words — a conflict of thoughts, of facts ; and in that conflict
the hosts of superstition will go down. They may not be
defeated to-day, or to-morrow, or next year, or during
this century, but they are growing weaker day by day.

This priest, McGlynn, has the courage to stand up against
the propaganda. What would have been his fate a few
years ago? What would have happened to him in Spain, in
Portugal, in Italy — in any other country that was Catholic
— only a few years ago ? Yet he stands here in New York,
he refuses to obey God's vicegerent; he freely gives his
mind to an archbishop ; he holds the holy Inquisition in con-

INTERVIEWS. 289

tempt. He has done a great thing. He is undoubtedly an
honest man. He never should have been a Catholic. He
has no business in that church. He has ideas of his own —
theories, and seems to be governed by principles. The
Catholic Church is not his place. If he remains, he must
submit, he must kneel in the humility of abjectness; he
must receive on the back of his independence the lashes of
the church. If he remains, he must ask the forgiveness of
slaves for having been a man. If he refuses to submit, the
church will not have him. He will be driven to take his
choice — to remain a member, humiliated, shunned, or go
out into the great, free world a citizen of the Republic, with
the rights, responsibilities, and duties of an American citizen.

I believe that Dr. McGlynn is an honest man, and that
he really believes in the land theories of Mr. George. I
have no confidence in his theories, but I have confidence
that he is actuated by the best and noblest motives.

Question. Are you to go on the lecture platform again ?

Answer. I expect to after a while. I am now waiting for
the church to catch up. I got so far ahead that I began
almost to sympathize with the clergy. They looked so help
less and talked in such a weak, wandering, and wobbling
kind of way that I felt as though I had been cruel. From
the papers I see that they are busy trying to find out who
the wife of Cain was. I see that the Rev. Dr. Robinson, of
New York, is now wrestling with that problem. He begins
to be in doubt whether Adam was the first man, whether
Eve was the first woman; suspects that there were other
races, and that Cain did not marry his sister, but somebody
else's sister, and that the somebody else was not Cain's
brother. One can hardly over-estimate the importance of
these questions, they have such a direct bearing on the
progress of the world. If it should turn out that Adam was
the first man, or that he was not the first man, something
might happen — I am not prepared to say what, but it might.

290 INTERVIEWS.

It is a curious kind of a spectacle to see a few hundred
people paying a few thousand dollars a year for the purpose
of hearing these great problems discussed: "Was Adam the
first man ? " " Who was Cain's wife ? " " Has anyone seen a
map of the land of Nod ? " " Where are the four rivers that
ran murmuring through the groves of Paradise?" "Who
was the snake? How did he walk? What language did
he speak?" This turns a church into a kind of nursery,
makes a cradle of each pew, and gives to each member a
rattle with which he can amuse what he calls his mind.

The great theologians of Andover — the gentlemen who
wear the brass collars furnished by the dead founder — have
been disputing among themselves as to what is to become of
the heathen who fortunately died before meeting any mis
sionary from that institution. One can almost afford to be
damned hereafter for the sake of avoiding the dogmas of
Andover here. Nothing more absurd and childish has ever
happened — not in the intellectual, but in the theological
world.

There is no need of the Freethinkers saying anything at
present. The work is being done by the church members
themselves. They are beginning to ask questions of the
clergy. They are getting tired of the old ideas — tired of
the consolations of eternal pain — tired of hearing about hell
— tired of hearing the Bible quoted or talked about — tired of
the scheme of redemption — tired of the Trinity, of the plenary
inspiration of the barbarous records of a barbarous people
— tired of the patriarchs and prophets — tired of Daniel and
the goats with three horns, and the image with the clay feet,
and the little stone that rolled down hill — tired of the mud
man and the rib woman — tired of the flood of Noah, of
the astronomy of Joshua, the geology of Moses — tired of
Kings and Chronicles and Lamentations — tired of the lachry
mose Jeremiah — tired of the monstrous, the malicious, and
the miraculous. In short, they are beginning to think.

INTERVIEWS. 29!

They have bowed their necks to the yoke of ignorance and
fear and impudence and superstition, until they are weary.
They long to be free. They are tired of the services — tired
of the meaningless prayers — tired of hearing each other say,
" Hear us, good Lord " — tired of the texts, tired of the ser
mons, tired of the lies about spontaneous combustion as a
punishment for blasphemy, tired of the bells, and they long
to hear the doxology of superstition. They long to have
Common Sense lift its hands in benediction and dismiss the

Congregation. — Brooklyn Citizen, April, 1886.

TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO ANARCHISTS.

Question. What do you think of the trial of the Anarchists
and their chances for a new trial ?

Answer. I have paid some attention to the evidence and
to the rulings of the court, and I have read the opinion of
the Supreme Court of Illinois, in which the conviction is
affirmed. Of course these men were tried during a period
of great excitement — tried when the press demanded their
conviction — when it was asserted that society was on the
edge of destruction unless these men were hanged. Under
such circumstances, it is not easy to have a fair and impar
tial trial. A judge should either sit beyond the reach of
prejudice, in some calm that storms cannot invade, or he
should be a kind of oak so that before any blast he would
stand erect. It is hard to find such a place as I have sug
gested, and not easy to find such a man. We are all in
fluenced more or less by our surroundings, by the demands
and opinions and feelings and prejudices of our fellow-
citizens. There is a personality made up of many individ
uals known as society. This personality has prejudices
like an individual. It often becomes enraged, acts without
the slightest sense, and repents at its leisure. It is hard
to reason with a mob whether organized or disorganized,
whether acting in the name of the law or of simple brute

2 92 INTERVIEWS.

force. But in any case, where people refuse to be governed
by reason, they become a mob.

Question. Do you not think that these men had a fair
trial ?

Answer. I have no doubt that the court endeavored to
be fair — no doubt that Judge Gary is a perfectly honest,
upright man, but I think his instructions were wrong. He
instructed the jury to the effect that where men have talked
in a certain way, and where the jury believed that the
result of such talk might be the commission of a crime,
that such men are responsible for that crime. Of course,
there is neither law nor sense in an instruction like this. I
hold that it must have been the intention of the man making
the remark, or publishing the article, or doing the thing — it
must have been his intention that the crime should be com
mitted. Men differ as to the effect of words, and a man may
say a thing with the best intentions the result of which is a
crime, and he may say a thing with the worst of intentions
and the result may not be a crime. The Supreme Court of
Illinois seemed to have admitted that the instruction was
wrong, but took the ground that it made no difference with
the verdict. This is a dangerous course for the court of last
resort to pursue ; neither is it very complimentary to the
judge who tried the case, that his instructions had no
effect upon the jury. Under the instructions of the court
below, any man who had been arrested with the seven
Anarchists and of whom it could be proved that he ever
said a word in favor of any change in government, or of
other peculiar ideas, no matter whether he knew of the
meeting at the Haymarket or not, would have been con
victed.

I am satisfied that the defendant Fielden never intend
ed to harm a human being. As a matter of fact, the evi
dence shows that he was making a speech in favor of
peace at the time of the occurrence. The evidence also

INTERVIEWS. 293

shows that he was an exceedingly honest, industrious, and
a very poor and philanthropic man.

Question. Do you then uphold the Anarchists ?

Answer. Certainly not. There is no place in this country
for the Anarchist. The source of power here is the people,
and to attack the political power is to attack the people. If
the laws are oppressive, it is the fault of the oppressed. If
the laws touch the poor and leave them without redress, it
is the fault of the poor. They are in a majority. The men
who work for their living are the very men who have the
power to make every law that is made in the United States.
There is no excuse for any resort to violence in this
country. The boycotting by trades unions and by labor
organizations is all wrong. Let them resort to legal meth
ods and to no other. I have not the slightest sympathy
with the methods that have been pursued by Anarchists, or
by Socialists, or by any other class that has resorted to force
or intimidation. The ballot-box is the place to assemble.
The will of the people can be made known in that way, and
their will can be executed. At the same time, I think I
understand what has produced the Anarchist, the Socialist
and the agitator. In the old country, a laboring man,
poorly clad, without quite enough to eat, with a wife in
rags, with a few children asking for bread — this laboring
man sees the idle enjoying every luxury of this life; he sees
on the breast of " my lady " a bonfire of diamonds; he sees
" my lord" riding in his park; he sees thousands of people
who from the cradle to the grave do no useful act ; add
nothing to the intellectual or the physical wealth of the
world ; he sees labor living in the tenement house, in the
hut ; idleness and nobility in the mansion and the palace :
the poor man a trespasser everywhere except upon the
street, where he is told to " move on," and in the dusty
highways of the country. That man naturally hates the
government — the government of the few, the government

294 INTERVIEWS.

that lives on the unpaid labor of the many, the government
that takes the child from the parents, and puts him in the
army to fight the child of another poor man and woman in
some other country. These Anarchists, these Socialists,
these agitators, have been naturally produced. All the
things of which I have spoken sow in the breast of poverty
the seeds of hatred and revolution. These poor men,
hunted by the officers of the law, cornered, captured,
imprisoned, excite the sympathy of other poor men, and if
some are dragged to the gallows and hanged, or beheaded
by the guillotine, they become saints and martyrs, and those
who sympathize with them feel that they have the power,
and only the power of hatred — the power of riot, of destruc
tion — the power of the torch, of revolution, that is to say,
of chaos and anarchy. The injustice of the higher classes
makes the lower criminal. Then there is another thing.
The misery of the poor excites in many noble breasts
sympathy, and the men who thus sympathize wish to better
the condition of their fellows. At first they depend upon
reason, upon calling the attention of the educated and power
ful to the miseries of the poor. Nothing happens, no result
follows. The Juggernaut of society moves on, and the
wretches are still crushed beneath the great wheels. These
men who are really good at first, filled with sympathy, now
become indignant — they are malicious, then destructive and
criminal. I do not sympathize with these methods, but
I do sympathize with the general object that all good and
generous people seek to accomplish — namely, to better the
condition of the human race. Only the other day, at
Boston, I said that we ought to take into consideration the
circumstances under which the Anarchists were reared;
that we ought to know that every man is necessarily pro
duced ; that man is what he is, not by accident, but neces
sity ; that society raises its own criminals — that it plows
the soil and cultivates and harvests the crop. And it was

INTERVIEWS. 295

telegraphed that I had defended anarchy. Nothing was
ever further from my mind. There is no place, as I said
before, for anarchy in the United States. In Russia it is
another question ; in Germany another question. Every
country that is governed by the one man, or governed by
the few, is the victim of anarchy. That is anarchy. That
is the worst possible form of socialism. The definition of
socialism given by its bitterest enemy is, that idlers wish to
live on the labor and on the money of others. Is not this
definition— a definition given in hatred — a perfect definition
of every monarchy and of nearly every government in the
world? That is to say: The idle few live on the labor and
the money of others.

Question. Will the Supreme Court take cognizance of
this case and prevent the execution of the judgment ?

Answer. Of course it is impossible for me to say. At the
same time, judging from the action of Justice Miller in the
case of The People vs. Maxwell, it seems probable that the
Supreme Court may interfere, but I have not examined the
question sufficiently to form an opinion. My feeling about
the whole matter is this : That it will not tend to answer
the ideas advanced by these men, to hang them. Their
execution will excite sympathy among thousands and
thousands of people who have never examined and know
nothing of the theories advanced by the Anarchists, or
the Socialists, or other agitators. In my judgment, suppos
ing the men to be guilty, it is far better to imprison them.
Less harm will be done the cause of free government. We
are not on the edge of any revolution. No other government
is as firmly fixed as ours. No other government has such a
broad and splendid foundation. We have nothing to fear.
Courage and safety can afford to be generous — can afford to
act without haste and without the feeling of revenge. So,
for my part, I hope that the sentence may be commuted,
and that these men, if found guilty at last, may be im-

296 INTERVIEWS.

prisoned. This course is, in my judgment, the safest to
pursue. It may be that I am led to this conclusion, because
of my belief that every man does as he must. This belief
makes me charitable toward all the world. This belief
makes me doubt the wisdom of revenge. This belief, so
far as I am concerned, blots from our language the word
" punishment." Society has a right to protect itself, and it
is the duty of society to reform, in so far as it may be pos
sible, any member who has committed what is called a
crime. Where the criminal cannot be reformed, and the
safety of society can be secured by his imprisonment, there
is no possible excuse for destroying his life. After these
six or seven men have been, in accordance with the forms
of law, strangled to death, there will be a few pieces of clay,
and about them will gather a few friends, a few admirers —
and these pieces will be buried, and over the grave will be
erected a monument, and those who were executed as
criminals will be regarded by thousands as saints. It is
far better for society to have a little mercy. The effect
upon the community will be good. If these men are
imprisoned, people will examine their teachings without
prejudice. If they are executed, seen through the tears of
pity, their virtues, their sufferings, their heroism, will be
exaggerated ; others may emulate their deeds, and the gulf
between the rich and the poor will be widened — a gulf that
may not close until it has devoured the noblest and the

best. — The Mail and Express, New York, Novembers, 1887.

THE STAGE AND THE PULPIT.

Question. What do you think of the Methodist minister
at Nashville, Tenn., who, from his pulpit, denounced the
theatrical profession, without exception, as vicious, and
of the congregation which passed resolutions condemning
Miss Emma Abbott for rising in church and contradicting
him, and of the Methodist bishop who likened her to a

INTERVIEWS. 297

" painted courtesan," and invoked the aid of the law "for
the protection of public worship" against ''strolling
players " ?

Answer. The Methodist minister of whom you speak,
without doubt uttered his real sentiments. The church has
always regarded the stage as a rival, and all its utterances
have been as malicious as untrue. It has always felt that
the money given to the stage was in some way taken from
the pulpit. It is on this principle that the pulpit wishes
everything, except the church, shut up on Sunday. It
knows that it cannot stand free and open competition.

All well-educated ministers know that the Bible suffers
by a comparison with Shakespeare. They know that there
is nothing within the lids of what they call "the sacred
book " that can for one moment stand side by side with
*' Lear " or "Hamlet " or "Julius Caesar " or "Antony and
Cleopatra " or with any other play written by the immortal
man. They know what a poor figure the Davids and the
Abrahams and the Jeremiahs and the Lots, the Jonahs, the
Jobs and the Noahs cut when on the stage with the great
characters of Shakespeare. For these reasons, among
others, the pulpit is malicious and hateful when it thinks
of the glories of the stage. What minister is there now
living who could command the prices commanded by Ed win
Booth or Joseph Jefferson; and what two clergymen, by
making a combination, could contend successfully with
Robson and Crane? How many clergymen would it take
to command, at regular prices, the audiences that attend the
presentation of Wagner's operas ?

It is very easy to see why the pulpit attacks the stage.
Nothing could have been in more wretched taste than for
the minister to condemn Miss Emma Abbott for rising in
church and defending not only herself, but other good
women who are doing honest work for an honest living.
Of course, no minister wishes to be answered; no minister

298 INTERVIEWS.

wishes to have anyone in the congregation call for the
proof. A few questions would break up all the theology in
the world. Ministers can succeed only when congregations
keep silent. Where superstition succeeds, doubt must be
dumb.

The Methodist bishop who attacked Miss Abbott simply
repeated the language of several centuries ago. In the laws
• of England actors were described as " sturdy vagrants," and
this bishop calls them "strolling players." If we only had
some strolling preachers like Garrick, like Edwin For
rest, or Booth and Barrett, or some crusade sisters like Mrs.
Siddons, Madam Ristori, Charlotte Cushman, or Madam
Modjeska, how fortunate the church would be !

Question. What is your opinion of the relative merits of
the pulpit and the stage, preachers and actors ?

Answer. We must remember that the stage presents an
ideal life. It is a world controlled by the imagination — a
world in which the justice delayed in real life may be done,
and in which that may happen which, according to the
highest ideal, should happen. It is a world, for the most
part, in which evil does not succeed, in which the vicious
are foiled, in which the right, the honest, the sincere, and
the good prevail. It cultivates the imagination, and in this
respect is far better than the pulpit. The mission of the
pulpit is to narrow and shrivel the human mind. The pul
pit denounces the freedom of thought and of expression ;
but on the stage the mind is free, and for thousands of
years the poor, the oppressed, the enslaved, have been per
mitted to witness plays wherein the slave was freed, wherein
the oppressed became the victor, and where the downtrod
den rose supreme.

And there is another thing. The stage has always
laughed at the spirit of caste. The low-born lass has loved
the prince. All human distinctions in this ideal world have
for the moment vanished, while honesty and love have

INTERVIEWS. 299

triumphed. The stage lightens the cares of life. The
pulpit increases the tears and groans of man. There is this
difference : the pretence of honesty and the honesty of pre
tence.

Question. How do you view the Episcopalian scheme of
building a six-million-dollar untaxed cathedral in this city
for the purpose of " uniting the sects," and, when that is
accomplished, " unifying the world in the love of Christ,"
and thereby abolishing misery ?

Answer. I regard the building of an Episcopal cathe
dral simply as a piece of religious folly. The world will
never be converted by Christian palaces and temples.
Every dollar used in its construction will be wasted. It
will have no tendency to unite the various sects; on the
contrary, it will excite the envy and jealousy of every other
sect. It will widen the gulf between the Episcopalian and
the Methodist, between the Episcopalian and the Presby
terian, and this hatred will continue until the other sects
build a cathedral just a little larger, and then the envy and
the hatred will be on the other side.

Religion will never unify the world, and never will give
peace to mankind. There has been more war in the last
eighteen hundred years than during any similar period
within historic times. War will be abolished, if it ever is
abolished, not by religion, but by intelligence. It will be
abolished when the poor people of Germany, of France, of
Spain, of England, and other countries find that they have
no interest in war. When those who pay, and those who
do the fighting, find that they are simply destroying their
own interests, wars will cease.

There ought to be a national court to decide national
difficulties. We consider a community civilized when the
individuals of that community submit their differences to a
legal tribunal ; but there being no national court, nations
now sustain, as to each other, the relation of savages — that

3OO INTERVIEWS.

is to say, each one must defend its rights by brute force.
The establishment of a national court civilizes nations, and
tends to do away with war.

Christianity caused so much war, so much bloodshed, that
Christians were forced to interpolate a passage to account
for their history, and the interpolated passage is, " I came
not to bring peace, but a sword." Suppose that all the
money wasted in cathedrals in the Middle Ages had been
used for the construction of schoolhouses, academies, and
universities, how much better the world would have been !
Suppose that instead of supporting hundreds of thousands
of idle priests, the money had been given to men of science
for the purpose of finding out something of benefit to the
human race here in this world.

Question. What is your opinion of "Christian charity"
and the "fatherhood of God" as an economic polity for
abolishing poverty and misery ?

Answer. Of course, the world is not to be civilized and
clothed and fed through charity. Ordinary charity creates
more want than it alleviates. The greatest possible charity
is the greatest possible justice. When proper wages are
paid, when every one is as willing to give what a thing is
worth as he is now willing to get it for less, the world will
be fed and clothed.

I believe in helping people to help themselves. I believe
that corporations, and successful men, and superior men
intellectually, should do all within their power to keep from
robbing their fellow-men. The superior man should pro
tect the inferior. The powerful should be the shield of the
weak. To-day it is, for the most part, exactly the other
way. The failures among men become the food of success.

The world is to grow better and better through intelli
gence, through a development of the brain, through taking
advantage of the forces of nature, through science, through
chemistry, and through the arts. Religion can do nothing

INTERVIEWS. 301

except to sow the seeds of discord between men and nations.
Commerce, manufactures, and the arts tend to peace and
the well-being of the world. What is known as religion —
that is to say, a system by which this world is wasted in
preparation for another — a system in which the duties of
man are greater to God than to his fellow-men — a system
that denies the liberty of thought and expression — tends
only to discord and retrogression. Of course, I know that
religious people cling to the Bible on account of the good
that is in it, and in spite of the bad, and I know that Free
thinkers throw away the Bible on account of the bad that
is in it, in spite of the good. I hope the time will come
when that book will be treated like other books, and will be
judged upon its merits, apart from the fiction of inspiration.
The church has no right to speak of charity, because it is
an object of charity itself. It gives nothing; all it can do
is to receive. At best, it is only a respectable beggar. I
never care to hear one who receives alms pay a tribute to
charity. The one who gives alms should pay this tribute.
The amount of money expended upon churches and priests
and all the paraphernalia of superstition, is more than
enough to drive the wolves from the doors of the world.

Question. Have you noticed the progress Catholics are
making in the Northwest, discontinuing public schools, and
forcing people to send their children to the parochial
schools; also, at Pittsburgh, Pa., a Roman Catholic priest
has been elected principal of a public school, and he has ap
pointed nuns as assistant teachers ?

Answer. Sectarian schools ought not to be supported by
public taxation. It is the very essence of religious tyranny
to compel a Methodist to support a Catholic school, or to
compel a Catholic to support a Baptist academy. Nothing
should be taught in the public schools that the teachers do
not know. Nothing should be taught about any religion,
and nothing should be taught that can, in any way, be

302 INTERVIEWS.

called sectarian. The sciences are not religious. There is
no such thing as Methodist mathematics, or Baptist botany.
In other words, no religion has anything to do with facts.
The facts are all secular; the sciences are all of this world.
If Catholics wish to establish their own schools for the pur
pose of preserving their ignorance, they have the right to
do so; so has any other denomination. But in this country,
the State has no right to teach any form of religion what
ever. Persons of all religions have the right to become
citizens, and citizens have the right to advocate and defend
any religion in which they believe, or they have the right
to denounce all religions. If the Catholics establish paro
chial schools, let them support such schools; and if they
do, they will simply lessen or shorten the longevity of that
particular superstition. It has often been said that noth
ing will repeal a bad law as quickly as its enforcement.
So, in my judgment, nothing will destroy any church as
certainly, and as rapidly, as for the members of that church
to live squarely up to the creed. The church is indebted to
its hypocrisy to-day for its life. No orthodox church in
the United States dare meet for the purpose of revising
the creed. They know that the whole thing would fall in
pieces.

Nothing could be more absurd than for a Roman Catholic
priest to teach a public school, assisted by nuns. The
Catholic Church is the enemy of human progress ; it teaches
every man to throw away his reason, to deny his observa
tion and experience.

Question. Your opinions have frequently been quoted
with regard to the Anarchists — with regard to their trial
and execution. Have you any objection to stating your
real opinion in regard to the matter ?

Answer. Not the least. I am perfectly willing that all
civilized people should know my opinions on any question
in which others than myself can have any interest.

INTERVIEWS. 303

I was anxious, in the first place, that the Anarchists should
have a fair and impartial trial. The worst form of anarchy is
when a judge violates his conscience and bows to a popular
demand. A court should care nothing for public opinion.
An honest judge decides the law, not as it ought to be, but
as it is, and the state of the public mind throws no light
upon the question of what the law then is.

I thought that some of the rulings on the trial of the
Anarchists were contrary to law. I think so still. I have
read the opinion of the Supreme Court of Illinois, and
while the conclusion reached by that tribunal is the law of
that case, I was not satisfied with the reasons given, and do
not regard the opinion as good law. There is no place for
an Anarchist in the United States. There is no excuse for
any resort to force ; and it is impossible to use language too
harsh or too bitter in denouncing the spirit of anarchy in
this country. But, no matter how bad a man is, he has the
right to be fairly tried ; and if he cannot be fairly tried, then
there is anarchy on the bench. So I was opposed to the
execution of those men. I thought it would have been far
better to commute the punishment to imprisonment, and I
said so ; and I not only said so, but I wrote a letter to Gov
ernor Oglesby, in which I urged the commutation of the
death sentence. In my judgment, a great mistake was
made. I am on the side of mercy, and if I ever make mis
takes, I hope they will all be made on that side. I have
not the slightest sympathy with the feeling of revenge.
Neither have I ever admitted, and I never shall, that every
citizen has not the right to give his opinion on all that may
be done by any servant of the people, by any judge, or by
any court, by any officer — however small or however great.
Each man in the United States is a sovereign, and a king
can freely speak his mind.

Words were put in my mouth that I never uttered with
regard to the Anarchists. I never said that they were

304 INTERVIEWS.

saints, or that they would be martyrs. What I said was,
that they would be regarded as saints and martyrs by many
people if they were executed, and that has happened which
I said would happen. I am, so far as I know, on the side
of the right. I wish, above all things, for the preservation
of human liberty. This Government is the best, and we
should not lose confidence in liberty. Property is of very
little value in comparison with freedom. A civilization that
rests on slavery is utterly worthless. I do not believe in
sacrificing all there is of value in the human heart, or in the
human brain, for the preservation of what is called property,
or rather, on account of the fear that what is called " prop
erty" may perish. Property is in no danger while man is
free. It is the freedom of man that gives value to property.
It is the happiness of the human race that creates what we
call value. If we preserve liberty, the spirit of progress, the
conditions of development, property will take care of itself.

Question. The Christian press during the past few months
has been very solicitous as to your health, and has reported
you weak and feeble physically, and not only so, but asserts
that there is a growing disposition on your part to lay down
your arms, and even to join the church.

Answer. I do not think the Christian press has been very
solicitous about my health. Neither do I think that my
health will ever add to theirs. The fact is, I am exceedingly
well, and my throat is better than it has been for many
years. Any one who imagines that I am disposed to lay
down my arms can read my Reply to Dr. Field in the No
vember number of the North American Review. I see no
particular difference in myself, except this ; that my hatred
of superstition becomes a little more and more intense; on
the other hand, I see more clearly, that all the superstitions
were naturally produced, and I am now satisfied that every
man does as he must, including priests and editors of relig
ious papers.

INTERVIEWS. 305

This gives me hope for the future. We find that certain
soil, with a certain amount of moisture and heat, produces
good corn, and we find when the soil is poor, or when the
ground is too wet, or too dry, that no amount of care can,
by any possibility, produce good corn. In other words, we
find that the fruit, that is to say, the result, whatever it may
be, depends absolutely upon the conditions. This being so,
we will in time find out the conditions that produce good,
intelligent, honest men. This is the hope for the future.
We shall know better than to rely on what is called reforma
tion, or regeneration, or a resolution born of ignorant ex
citement. We shall rely, then, on the eternal foundation —
the fact in nature — that like causes produce like results, and
that good conditions will produce good people.

Question. Every now and then some one challenges you to
a discussion, and nearly every one who delivers lectures, or
speeches, attacking you, or your views, says that you are
afraid publicly to debate these questions. Why do you not
meet these men, and why do you not answer these attacks?

Answer. In the first place, it would be a physical impossi
bility to reply to all the attacks that have been made — to
all the "answers." I receive these attacks, and these an
swers, and these lectures almost every day. Hundreds of
them are delivered every year. A great many are put in
pamphlet form, and, of course, copies are received by me.
Some of them I read, at least I look them over, and I have
never yet received one worthy of the slightest notice, never
one in which the writer showed the slightest appreciation
of the questions under discussion. All these pamphlets are
about the same, and they could, for that matter, have all
been produced by one person. They are impudent, shallow,
abusive, illogical, and in most respects, ignorant. So far as
the lecturers are concerned, I know of no one who has yet
said anything that challenges a reply. I do not think a
single paragraph has been produced by any of the gentlemen

306 INTERVIEWS.

who have replied to me in public, that is now remembered
by reason of its logic or its beauty. I do not feel called
upon to answer any argument that does not at least appear
to be of value. Whenever any article appears worthy of an
answer, written in' a kind and candid spirit, it gives me
pleasure to reply.

I should like to meet some one who speaks by authority,
some one who really understands his creed, but I cannot
afford to waste time on little priests or obscure parsons or

ignorant laymen. — The Truth. Seeker •, New York, January 14, 1888.

ROSCOE CONKLING.

Question. What is Mr. Conkling's place in the political
history of the United States ?

Answer. Upon the great questions Mr. Conkling has
been right. During the war he was always strong and
clear, unwavering and decided. His position was always
known. He was right on reconstruction, on civil rights, on
the currency, and, so far as I know, on all important ques
tions. He will be remembered as an honest, fearless man.
He was admired for his known integrity. He was never
even suspected of being swayed by an improper considera
tion. He was immeasurably above purchase.

His popularity rested upon his absolute integrity. He
was not adapted for a leader, because he would yield
nothing. He had no compromise in his nature. He went
his own road and he would not turn aside for the sake of
company. His individuality was too marked and his will
too imperious to become a leader in a republic. There is
a great deal of individuality in this country, and a leader
must not appear to govern and must not demand obedience.
In the Senate he was a leader. He settled with no one.

Question. What essentially American idea does he stand
for?

Answer, It is a favorite saying in this country that the

INTERVIEWS. 307

people are sovereigns. Mr. Conkling felt this to be true,
and he exercised what he believed to be his rights. He
insisted upon the utmost freedom for himself. He settled
with no one but himself. He stands for individuality — for
the freedom of the citizen, the independence of the man.
No lord, no duke, no king was ever prouder of his title or
his place than Mr. Conkling was of his position and his
power. He was thoroughly American in every drop of
his blood.

Question. What have you to say about his having died
with sealed lips ?

Answer. Mr. Conkling was too proud to show wounds.
He did not tell his sorrows to the public. It seemed suffi
cient for him to know the facts himself. He seemed to
have great confidence in time, and he had the patience to
wait. Of course he could have told many things that
would have shed light on many important events, but for
my part I think he acted in the noblest way.

He was a striking and original figure in our politics.
He stood alone. I know of no one like him. He will be
remembered as a fearless and incorruptible statesman, a
great lawyer, a magnificent speaker, and an honest man. —

The Herald, New York, April 19, 1888.

THE CHURCH AND THE STAGE.

Question. I have come to talk with you a little about the
drama. Have you any decided opinions on that subject ?

Answer. Nothing is more natural than imitation. The
little child with her doll, telling it stories, putting words
in its mouth, attributing to it the feelings of happiness
and misery, is the simple tendency toward the drama.
Little children always have plays, they imitate their
parents, they put on the clothes of their elders, they have
imaginary parties, carry on conversation with imaginary
persons, have little dishes filled with imaginary food, pour

3O8 INTERVIEWS.

tea and coffee out of invisible pots, receive callers, and re
peat what they have heard their mothers say. This is
simply the natural drama, an exercise of the imagination
which always has been and which, probably, always will
be, a source of great pleasure. In the early days of the
world nothing was more natural than for the people to re-
enact the history of their country — to represent the great
heroes, the great battles, and the most exciting scenes the
history of which has been preserved by legend. I believe
this tendency to re-enact, to bring before the eyes the great,
the curious, and pathetic events of history, has been
universal. All civilized nations have delighted in the
theatre, and the greatest minds in many countries have
been devoted to the drama, and, without doubt, the great
est man about whom we know anything devoted his life to
the production of plays.

Question. I would like to ask you why, in your opinion
as a student of history, has the Protestant Church always
been so bitterly opposed to the theatre ?

Answer. I believe that the early Christians expected the
destruction of the world. They had no idea of remaining
here, in the then condition of things, but for a few days.
They expected that Christ would come again, that the
world would be purified by fire, that all the unbelievers
would be burned up and that the earth would become a fit
habitation for the followers of the Savior. Protestantism
became as ascetic as the early Christians. It is hard to con
ceive of anybody believing in the " Five Points " of John Cal
vin going to any place of amusement. The creed of Protest
antism made life infinitely sad and made man infinitely
responsible. According to this creed every man was liable
at any moment to be summoned to eternal pain ; the most
devout Christian was not absolutely sure of salvation.
This life was a probationary state. Everybody was con
sidered as waiting on the dock of time, sitting on his trunk

INTERVIEWS. 309

expecting the ship that was to bear him to an eternity of
good or evil — probably evil. They were in no state of
mind to enjoy burlesque or comedy, and, so far as tragedy
was concerned, their own lives and their own creeds were
tragic beyond anything that could by any possibility hap
pen in this world. A broken heart was nothing to be com.
pared with a damned soul ; the afflictions of a few years,
with the flames of eternity. This, to say the least of it,
accounts, in part, for the hatred that Protestantism always
bore toward the stage. Of course, the churches have always
regarded the theatre as a rival and have begrudged the
money used to support the stage. You know that Macaulay
said the Puritans objected to bear-baiting, not because they
pitied the bears, but because they hated to see the people
enjoy themselves. There is in this at least a little truth.
Orthodox religion has always been and always will be the
enemy of happiness. This world is not the place for en
joyment. This is the place to suffer. This is the place to
practice self-denial, to wear crowns of thorns ; the other
world is the place for joy, provided you are fortunate
enough to travel the narrow, grass-grown path. Of
course, wicked people can be happy here. People who
care nothing for the good of others, who live selfish and
horrible lives, are supposed by Christians to enjoy them
selves ; consequently, they will be punished in another world.
But whoever carried the cross of decency, and whoever denied
himself to that degree that he neither stole nor forged
nor murdered, will be paid for this self-denial in another
world. And whoever said that he preferred a prayer-meet
ing with five or six queer old men and two or three very
aged women, with one or two candles, and who solemnly
affirmed that he enjoyed that far more than he could a play
of Shakespeare, was expected with much reason, I think,
to be rewarded in another world.

Question. Do you think that church people were justified

3IO INTERVIEWS.

in their opposition to the drama in the days when Con-
greve, Wycherley and Ben Jonson were the popular favor
ites ?

Answer. In that time there was a great deal of vulgarity
in many of the plays. Many things were said on the stage
that the people of this age would not care to hear, and
there was not very often enough wit in the saying to re
deem it. My principal objection to Congreve, Wycherley
and most of their contemporaries is that the plays were
exceedingly poor and had not much in them of real, ster
ling value. The Puritans, however, did not object on ac
count of the vulgarity ; that was not the honest objection.
No play was ever put upon the English stage more vulgar
than the "Table Talk" of Martin Luther, and many ser
mons preached in that day were almost unrivaled for vul
garity. The worst passages in the Old Testament were
quoted with a kind of unction that showed a love for the
vulgar. And, in my judgment, the worst plays were as
good as the sermons, and the theatre of that time was bet
ter adapted to civilize mankind, to soften the human
heart, and to make better men and better women, than the
pulpit of that day. The actors, in my judgment, were
better people than the preachers. They had in them more
humanity, more real goodness and more appreciation of
beauty, of tenderness, of generosity and of heroism. Prob
ably no religion was ever more thoroughly hateful than
Puritanism. But all religionists who believe in an eternity
of pain would naturally be opposed to everything that
makes this life better ; and, as a matter of fact, orthodox
churches have been the enemies of painting, of sculpture,
of music and of the drama.

Question. What, in your estimation, is the value of the
drama as a factor in our social life at the present time ?

Answer. I believe that the plays of Shakespeare are the
most valuable things in the possession of the human race.

INTERVIEWS. 311

No man can read and understand Shakespeare without
being an intellectually developed man. If Shakespeare
could be as widely circulated as the Bible— if all the Bible
societies would break the plates they now have and print
Shakespeare, and put Shakespeare in all the languages of
the world, nothing would so raise the intellectual standard
of mankind. Think of the different influence on men be
tween reading Deuteronomy and "Hamlet" and "King
Lear"; between studying Numbers and the "Midsummer
Night's Dream " ; between pondering over the murderous
crimes and assassinations in Judges, and studying "The
Tempest " or " As You Like It." Man advances as he
develops intellectually. The church teaches obedience.
The man who reads Shakespeare has his intellectual horizon
enlarged. He begins to think for himself, and he enjoys liv
ing in a new world. The characters of Shakespeare become
his acquaintances. He admires the heroes, the philosophers ;
he laughs with the clowns, and he almost adores the beauti
ful women, the pure, loving, and heroic women born of
Shakespeare's heart and brain. The stage has amused and
instructed the world. It has added to the happiness of
mankind. It has kept alive all arts. It is in partnership
with all there is of beauty, of poetry, and expression. It
goes hand in hand with music, with painting, with sculp
ture, with oratory, with philosophy, and history. The
stage has humor. It abhors stupidity. It despises hypoc
risy. It holds up to laughter the peculiarities, the idiosyn
crasies, and the little insanities of mankind. It thrusts the
spear of ridicule through the shield of pretence. It laughs
at the lugubrious and it has ever taught and will, in all
probability, forever teach, that Man is more than a title,
and that human love laughs at all barriers, at all the
prejudices of society and caste that tend to keep apart two
loving hearts.

Question. What is your opinion of the progress of the

313 INTERVIEWS.

drama in educating the artistic sense of the community as
compared with the progress of the church as an educator of
the moral sentiment ?

Answer. Of course, the stage is not all good, nor is — and
I say this with becoming modesty — the pulpit all bad.
There have been bad actors and there have been good
preachers. There has been no improvement in plays since
Shakespeare wrote. There has been great improvement in
theatres, and the tendency seems to me to be toward higher
artistic excellence in the presentation of plays. As we be
come slowly civilized we will constantly demand more
artistic excellence. There will always be a class satisfied
with the lowest form of dramatic presentation, with coarse
wit, with stupid but apparent jokes, and there will always
be a class satisfied with almost anything ; but the class de
manding the highest, the best, will constantly increase in
numbers, and the other classes will, in all probability, cor
respondingly decrease. The church has ceased to be an
educator. In an artistic direction it never did anj^thing
except in architecture, and that ceased long ago. The fol
lowers of to-day are poor copyists. The church has been
compelled to be a friend of, or rather to call in the assist
ance of, music. As a moral teacher, the church always has
been and always will be a failure. The pulpit, to use the
language of Frederick Douglass, has always " echoed the
cry of the street." Take our own histor}'. The church
was the friend of slavery. That institution was defended
in nearly every pulpit. The Bible was the auction-block on
which the slave-mother stood while her child was sold from
her arms. The church, for hundreds of years, was the
friend and defender of the slave-trade. I know of no crime
that has not been defended by the church, in one form or
other. The church is not a pioneer ; it accepts a new
truth, last of all, and only when denial has become useless.
The church preaches the doctrine of forgiveness. This

INTERVIEWS. 313

doctrine sells crime on credit. The idea that there is a God
who rewards and punishes, arid who can reward, if he so
wishes, the meanest and vilest of the human race, so that
he will be eternally happy, and can punish the best of the
human race, so that he will be eternally miserable, is sub
versive of all morality. Happiness ought to be the result
of good actions. Happiness ought to spring from the seed
a man sows himself. It ought not to be a reward, it ought
to be a consequence, and there ought to be no idea that
there is any being who can step between action and conse
quence. To preach that a man can abuse his wife and
children, rob his neighbors, slander his fellow-citizens, and
yet, a moment or two before he dies, by repentance become
a glorified angel, is, in my judgment, immoral. And to
preach that a man can be a good man, kind to his wife and
children, an honest man, paying his debts, and yet, for the
lack of a certain belief, the moment after he is dead, be sent
to an eternal prison, is also immoral. So that, according to
my opinion, while the church teaches men many good
things, it also teaches doctrines subversive of morality.
If there were not in the whole world a church, the morality
of man, in my judgment, would be the gainer.

Question. What do you think of the treatment of the
actor by society in his social relations?

Answer. For a good many years the basis of society has
been the dollar. Only a few years ago all literary men
were ostracized because they had no money ; neither did
they have a reading public. If any man produced a book
he had to find a patron — some titled donkey, some landed
lubber, in whose honor he could print a few well-turned lies
on the fly-leaf. If you wish to know the degradation of
literature, read the dedication written by Lord Bacon to
James I., in which he puts him beyond all kings, living and
dead — beyond Caesar and Marcus Aurelius. In those days
the literary man was a servant, a hack. He lived in Grub

314 INTERVIEWS.

Street. He was only one degree above the sturdy vagrant
and the escaped convict. Why was this? He had no
money and he lived in an age when money was the founda
tion of respectability. Let me give you another instance :
Mozart, whose brain was a fountain of melody, was forced
to eat at a table with coachmen, with footmen and scull
ions. He was simply a servant who was commanded to
make music for a pudding-headed bishop. The same was
true of the great painters, and of almost all other men who
rendered the world beautiful by art, and who enriched the
languages of mankind. The basis of respectability was the
dollar.

Now that the literary man has an intelligent public he
cares nothing for the ignorant patron. The literary man
makes money. The world is becoming civilized and the
literary man stands high. In England, however, if Charles
Darwin had been invited to dinner, and there had been
present some sprig of nobility, some titled vessel holding
the germs of hereditary disease, Darwin would have been
compelled to occupy a place beneath him. But I have hopes
even for England. The same is true of the artist. The man
who can now paint a picture for which he receives from
five thousand to fifty thousand dollars, is necessarily re
spectable. The actor who may realize from one to two
thousand dollars a night, or even more, is welcomed in the
stupidest and richest society. So with the singers and
with all others who instruct and amuse mankind. Many
people imagine that he who amuses them must be lower
than they. This, however, is hardly possible. . I believe
in the aristocracy of brain and heart ; in the aristocracy of
intelligence and goodness, and not only appreciate but ad
mire the great actor, the great painter, the great sculptor,
the marvelous singer. In other words, I admire all peo
ple who tend to make this life richer, who give an addi
tional thought to this poor world.

INTERVIEWS. 315

Question. Do you think this liberal movement, favoring
the better class of plays, inaugurated by the Rev. Dr.
Abbott, will tend to soften the sentiment of the orthodox
churches against the stage ?

Answer. I have not read what Dr. Abbott has written on
this subject. From your statement of his position, I think
he entertains quite a sensible view, and, when we take into
consideration that he is a minister, a miraculously sen
sible view. It is not the business of the dramatist, the
actor, the painter or the sculptor to teach what the church
calls morality. The dramatist and the actor ought to be
truthful, ought to be natural — that is to say, truthfully
and naturally artistic. He should present pictures of life
properly chosen, artistically constructed ; an exhibition of
emotions truthfully done, artistically done. If vice is pre
sented naturally, no one will fall in love with vice. If the
better qualities of the human heart are presented naturally,
no one can fail to fall in love with them. But they need
not be presented for that purpose. The object of the artist
is to present truthfully and artistically. He is not a Sunday
school teacher. He is not to have the moral effect eternally
in his mind. It is enough for him to be truly artistic.
Because, as I have said, a great many times, the greatest
good is done by indirection. For instance, a man lives a
good, noble, honest and lofty life. The value of that life
would be destroyed if he kept calling attention to it — if he
said to all who met him, " Look at me ! " he would become
intolerable. The truly artistic speaks of perfection ; that
is to say, of harmony, not only of conduct, but of harmony
and proportion in everything. The pulpit is always afraid
of the passions, and really imagines that it has some influ
ence on men and women, keeping them in the path of vir
tue. No greater mistake was ever made. Eternally talking
and harping on that one subject, in my judgment, does
harm. Forever keeping it in the mind by reading passages

3l6 INTERVIEWS.

from the Bible, by talking about the " corruption of the
human heart," of the " power of temptation, " of the
scarcity of virtue, of the plentifulness of vice — all these
platitudes tend to produce exactly what they are directed
against.

Question. I fear, Colonel, that I have surprised you into
agreeing with a clergyman. The following are the points
made by the Rev. Dr. Abbott in his editorial on the theatre,
and it seems to me that you and he think very much alike —
on that subject. The points are these:

1. It is not the function of the drama to teach moral lessons.

2. A moral lesson neither makes nor mars either a drama or novel.

3. The moral quality of a play does not depend upon the result.

4. The real function of the drama is like that of the novel — not to
amuse, not to excite ; but to portray life, and so minister to it. And
as virtue and vice, goodness and evil, are the great fundamental facts
of life, they must, in either serious story or serious play, be portray
ed. If they are so portrayed that the vice is alluring and the virtue
repugnant, the play or story is immoral ; if so portrayed that the vice
is repellant and the virtue alluring, the play or story is moral.

5. The church has no occasion to ask the theatre to preach ; though
if it does preach we have a right to demand that its ethical doctrines
be pure and high. But we have a right to demand that in its pictures
of life it so portrays vice as to make it abhorrent, and so portrays
virtue as to make it attractive.

Answer. I agree in most of what you have read, though
I must confess that to find a minister agreeing with me, or
to find myself agreeing with a minister, makes me a little
uncertain. All art, in my judgment, is for the sake of ex
pression — equally true of the drama as of painting and
sculpture. No poem touches the human heart unless it
touches the universal. It must, at some point, move in
unison with the great ebb and flow of things. The same is
true of the play, of a piece of music or a statue. I think
that all real artists, in all departments, touch the universal,
and when the}' do the result is good ; but the result need
not have been a consideration. There is an old story that

INTERVIEWS. 317

at first there was a temple erected upon the earth by God
himself ; that afterward this temple was shivered into
countless pieces and distributed over the whole earth, and
that all the rubies and diamonds and precious stones since
found are parts of that temple. Now, if we could conceive of
a building, or of anything involving all Art, and that it had
been scattered abroad, then I would say that whoever finds
and portrays truthfully a thought, an emotion, a truth, has
found and restored one of the jewels. — Dramatic Mirror, New

York, April 21, 1888.

PROTECTION— FREE TRADE.

Question. Do you take much interest in politics, Colonel
Ingersoll ?

Answer. I take as much interest in politics as a Republi
can ought who expects nothing and who wants nothing
for himself. I want to see this country again controlled
by the Republican party. The present administration has
not, in my judgment, the training and the political intelli
gence to decide upon the great economic and financial
questions. There are a great many politicians and but
few statesmen. Here, where men have to be elected every
two or six years, there is hardly time for the officials to
study statesmanship — they are busy laying pipes and fix
ing fences for the next election. Each one feels much like
a monkey at a fair, on the top of a greased pole, and puts
in the most of his time dodging stones and keeping from
falling. I want to see the party in power best qualified,
best equipped, to administer the Government.

Question. What do you think will be the particular issue
of the coming campaign ?

Answer. That question has already been answered. The
great question will be as to the tariff. Mr. Cleveland im
agines that the surplus can be gotten rid of by a reduction
of the tariff. If the reduction is so great as to increase the

31 8 INTERVIEWS.

demand for the foreign articles, the probability is that the
surplus will be increased. The surplus can surely be done
away with by either of two methods ; first make the tariff
prohibitory ; second, have no tariff. But if the tariff is just
at that point where the foreign goods could pay it and yet
undersell the American so as to stop home manufactures,
then the surplus would increase.

As a rule we can depend on American competition to
keep prices at a reasonable rate. When that fails we have
at all times the governing power in our hands — that is to
say, we can reduce the tariff. In other words, the tariff is
not for the benefit of the manufacturer — the protection is
not for the mechanic or the capitalist — it is for the whole
country. I do not believe in protecting silk simply to help
the town of Paterson, but I am for the protection of that
manufacture, because, in my judgment, it helps the entire
country, and because I know that it has given us a far
better article of silk at a far lower price than we obtained
before the establishment of those factories.

I believe in the protection of every industry that needs it,
to the end that we may make use of every kind of brain
and find use for all human capacities. In this way we will
produce greater and better people. A nation of agricul
turists or a nation of mechanics would become narrow and
small, but where everything is done, then the brain is cul
tivated on every side, from artisan to artist. That is to
say, we become thinkers as well as workers ; muscle and
mind form a partnership.

I don't believe that England is particularly interested in
the welfare of the United States. It never seemed probable
to me that men like Goldwin Smith sat up nights fearing
that we in some way might injure ourselves. To use a
phrase that will be understood by theologians at least, we
ought to " copper " all English advice.

The free traders say that there ought to be no obstructions

INTERVIEWS. 319

placed by governments between buyers and sellers. If we
want to make the trade, of course there should be no obstruc
tion, but if we prefer that Americans should trade with
Americans — that Americans should make what Americans
want — then, so far as trading with foreigners is concerned,
there ought to be an obstruction.

I am satisfied that the United States could get along if
the rest of the world should be submerged, and I want to
see this country in such a condition that it can be independ
ent of the rest of mankind.

There is more mechanical genius in the United States
than in the rest of the world, and this genius has been
fostered and developed by protection. The Democracy
wish to throw all this away — to make useless this skill, this
ingenuity, born of generations of application and thought.
These deft and marvelous hands that create the countless
things of use and beauty to be worth no more than the com
mon hands of ignorant delvers and shovelers. To the ex
tent that thought is mingled with labor, labor becomes
honorable and its burden lighter.

Thousands of millions of dollars have been invested on
the faith of this policy — millions and millions of people
are this day earning their bread by reason of protection,
and they are better housed and better fed and better clothed
than any other workmen on the globe.

The intelligent people of this country will not be satisfied
with President Cleveland's platform — with his free trade
primer. They believe in good wages for good work, and
they know that this is the richest nation in the world. The
Republic is worth at least sixty billion dollars. This vast
sum is the result of labor, and this labor has been pro
tected either directly or indirectly. This vast sura has
been made by the farmer, the mechanic, the laborer, the
miner, the inventor.

Protection has given woru: and wages to the mechanic

32O INTERVIEWS.

and a market to the farmer. The interests of all laborers
in America — all men who work — are identical. If the
farmer pays more for his plow he gets more for his plow
ing. In old times, when the South manufactured nothing
and raised only raw material — for the reason that its labor
was enslaved and could not be trusted with education
enough to become skillful — it was in favor of free trade ;
it wanted to sell the raw material to England and buy the
manufactured article where it could buy the cheapest.
Even under those circumstances it was a short-sighted and
unpatriotic policy. Now everything is changing in the
South. They are beginning to see that he who simply
raises raw material is destined to be forever poor. For
instance, the farmer who sells corn will never get rich ; the
farmer should sell pork and beef and horses. So a nation,
a State, that parts with its raw material, loses nearly all the
profits, for the reason that the profit rises with the skill
requisite to produce. It requires only brute strength to
raise cotton ; it requires something more to spin it, to
weave it, and the more beautiful the fabric the greater the
skill, and consequently the higher the wages and the greater
the profit. In other words, the more thought is mingled
with labor the more valuable is the result.

Besides all this, protection is the mother of economy ; the
cheapest at last, no matter whether the amount paid is less
or more. It is far better for us to make glass than to sell
sand to other countries ; the profit on sand will be exceed
ingly small.

The interests of this country are united ; they depend
upon each other. You destroy one and the effect upon all
the rest may be disastrous. Suppose we had free trade to
day, what would become of the manufacturing interests
to-morrow ? The value of property would fall thousands of
millions of dollars in an instant. The fires would die out
in thousands and thousands of furnaces, innumerable

INTERVIEWS. 321

engines would stop, thousands and thousands would stop
digging coal and iron and lead. What would the city that
had been built up by the factories be worth ? What would
be the effect on farms in that neighborhood ? What would
be the effect on railroads, on freights, on business — what
upon the towns through which they passed. Stop making
iron in Pennsylvania, and the State would be bankrupt in
an hour. Give us free trade, and New Jersey, Connecticut
and many other States would not be worth one dollar an
acre.

If a man will think of the connection between all indus
tries — of the dependence and inter-dependence of each on
all ; of the subtle relations between all human pursuits — he
will see that to destroy some of the great interests means
financial ruin and desolation. I am not talking now about
a tariff that is too high, because that tariff does not produce
a surplus — neither am I asking to have that protected
which needs no protection — I am only insisting that all the
industries that have been fostered and that need protection
should be protected, and that we should turn our attention
to the interests of our own country, letting other nations
take care of themselves. If every American would use
only articles produced by Americans — if they would wear
only American cloth, only American silk — if we would
absolutely stand by each other, the prosperity of this nation
would be the marvel of human history. We can live at
home, and we have now the ingenuity, the intelligence, the
industry to raise from nature everything that a nation
needs.

Question. What have you to say about the claim that Mr.
Cleveland does not propose free trade ?

Answer. I suppose that he means what he said. His
argument was all for free trade, and he endeavored to show
to the farmer that he lost altogether more money by pro
tection, because he paid a higher price for manufactured

322 INTERVIEWS.

articles and received no more for what he had to sell. This
certainly was an argument in favor of free trade. And
there is no way to decrease the surplus except to prohibit
the importation of foreign articles, which certainly Mr.
Cleveland is not in favor of doing, or to reduce the tariff
to a point so low that no matter how much may be imported
the surplus will be reduced. If the message means any
thing it means free trade, and if there is any argument in it
it is an argument in favor of absolute free trade. The
party, not willing to say "free trade" uses the word
"reform." This is simply a mask and a pretence. The
party knows that the President made a mistake. The
party, however, is so situated that it cannot get rid of
Cleveland, and consequently must take him with his mis
take — they must take him with his message, and then show
that all he intended by " free trade " was " reform."

Question. Who do you think ought to be nominated at
Chicago?

Answer. Personally, I am for General Gresham. I am
saying nothing against the other prominent candidates.
They have their friends, and many of them are men of
character and capacity, and would make good Presidents.
But I know of no man who has a better record than
Gresham, and of no man who, in my judgment, would
receive a larger number of votes. I know of no Republican
who would not support Judge Gresham. I have never
heard one say that he had anything against him or knew of
any reason why he should not be voted for. He is a man
of great natural capacity. He is candid and unselfish. He
has for many years been engaged in the examination and
decision of important questions, of good principles, and con
sequently he has a trained mind. He knows how to take
.hold of a question, to get at a fact, to discover in a multitude
of complications the real principle — the heart of the case.
He has always been a man of affairs. He is not simply a

INTERVIEWS. 323

judge — that is to say, a legal pair of scales — he knows the
effect of his decision on the welfare of communities — he is
not governed entirely by precedents — he has opinions of his
own. In the next place, he is a man of integrity in all the
relations of life. He is not a seeker after place, and, so far
as I know, he has done nothing for the purpose of inducing
any human being to favor his nomination. I have never
spoken to him on the subject.

In the West he has developed great strength, in fact, his
popularity has astonished even his best friends. The great
mass of people want a perfectly reliable man — one who will
be governed by his best judgment and by a desire to do
the fair and honorable thing. It has been stated that the
great corporations might not support him with much
warmth for the reason that he has failed to decide certain
cases in their favor. I believe that he has decided the law
as he believed it to be, and that he has never been influenced
in the slightest degree, by the character, position, or the
wealth of the parties before him. It may be that some of
the great financiers, the manipulators, the creators of bonds
and stocks, the blowers of financial bubbles, will not sup
port him and will not contribute any money for the pay
ment of election expenses, because they are perfectly satis
fied that they could not make any arrangements with him to
get the money back, together with interest thereon, but the
people of this country are intelligent enough to know what
that means, and they will be patriotic enough to see to it
that no man needs to bow or bend or cringe to the rich to
attain the highest place.

Th*e probability is that Mr. Elaine could have been
nominated had he not withdrawn, but having withdrawn,
of course the party is released. Others were induced to
become candidates, and under these circumstances Mr.
Elaine has hardly the right to change his mind, and cer
tainly other persons ought not to change it for him.

324 INTERVIEWS.

Question. Do you think that the friends of Gresham
would support Elaine if he should be nominated ?

Answer. Undoubtedly they would. If they go into con
vention they must abide the decision. It would be dishon
orable to do that which you would denounce in others.
Whoever is nominated ought to receive the support of all
good Republicans. No party can exist that will not be
bound by its own decision. When the platform is made,
then is the time to approve or reject. The conscience of
the individual cannot be bound by the action of party,
church or state. But when you ask a convention to nomin
ate your candidate, you really agree to stand by the choice
of the convention. Principles are of more importance than
candidates. As a rule, men who refuse to support the
nominee, while pretending to believe in the platform, are
giving an excuse for going over to the enemy. It is a pre
tence to cover desertion. I hope that whoever may be
nominated at Chicago will receive the cordial support of the
entire party, of every man who believes in Republican prin
ciples, who believes in good wages for good work, and has
confidence in the old firms of " Mind and Muscle," of " Head

and Hand." — New YorkPress% May 27, 1888.

LABOR, AND TARIFF REFORM.

Question. What, in your opinion, is the condition of labor
in this country as compared with that abroad ?

Answer. In the first place, it is self-evident that if labor
received more in other lands than in this the tide of emigra
tion would be changed. The workingmen would leave our
shores. People who believe in free trade are always telling us
that the laboring man is paid much better in Germany than
in the United States, and yet nearly every ship that comes
from Germany is crammed with Germans, who, for some
unaccountable reason, prefer to leave a place where they are
doing well and come to one where they, must do worse.

INTERVIEWS. 325

The same thing can be said of Denmark and Sweden, of
England, Scotland, Ireland and of Italy. The truth is, that
in all those lands the laboring man can earn just enough
to-day to do the work of to-morrow ; everything he earns is
required to get food enough in his body and rags enough
on his back to work from day to day, to toil from week to
week. There are only three luxuries within his reach —
air, light and water ; probably a fourth might be added —
death.

In those countries the few own the land, the few have the
capital, the few make the laws, and the laboring man is not
a power. His opinion is neither asked nor heeded. The
employers pay as little as they can. When the world
becomes civilized everybody will want to pay what things
are worth, but now capital 'is perfectly willing that labor
shall remain at the starvation line. Competition on every
hand tends to put down wages. The time will come when
the whole community will see that justice is economical.
If you starve laboring men you increase crime ; you mul
tiply, as they do in England, workhouses, hospitals and all
kinds of asylums, and these public institutions are for the
purpose of taking care of the wrecks that have been pro
duced by greed and stinginess and meanness — that is to say,
by the ignorance of capital.

Question. What effect has the protective tariff on the con
dition of labor in this country ?

Answer. To the extent that the tariff keeps out the
foreign article it is a direct protection to American labor.
Everything in this country is on a larger scale than in any
other. There is far more generosity among the manufac
turers and merchants and millionaires and capitalists of the
United States than among those of any other country, al
though they are bad enough and mean enough here.

But the great thing for the laboring man in the United
States is that he is regarded as a man. He is a unit of

326 INTERVIEWS.

political power. His vote counts just as much as that of
the richest and most powerful. The laboring man has to
be consulted. The candidate has either to be his friend or
to pretend to be his friend, before he can succeed. A man
running for the presidency could not say the slightest word
against the laboring man, or calculated to put a stain upon
industry, without destroying every possible chance of
success. Generally, every candidate tries to show that he is
a laboring man, or that he was a laboring man, or that his
father was before him. There is in this country very little
of the spirit of caste — the most infamous spirit that ever
infested the heartless breast or the brainless head of a
human being.

Question. What will be the effect on labor of a departure
in American policy in the direction of free trade ?

Answer. If free trade could be adopted to-morrow there
would be an instant shrinkage of values in this country.
Probably the immediate loss would equal twenty billion
dollars — that is to say, one-third of the value of the country.
No one can tell its extent. All things are so interwoven
that to destroy one industry cripples another, and the
influence keeps on until it touches the circumference of
human interests.

I believe that labor is a blessing. It never was and never
will be a curse. It is a blessed thing to labor for your wife
and children, for your father and mother, and for the ones
you love. It is a blessed thing to have an object in life —
something to do — something to call into play your best
thoughts, to develop your faculties and to make you a man.
How beautiful, how charming, are the dreams of the young
mechanic, the artist, the musician, the actor and the student.
How perfectly stupid must be the life of a young man with
nothing to do, no ambition, no enthusiasm — that is to say,
nothing of the divine in him ; the young man with an object
in life, of whose brain a great thought, a great dream has

INTERVIEWS. 327

taken possession, and in whose heart there is a great, throb
bing hope. He looks forward to success — to wife, children,
home — all the blessings and sacred joys of human life. He
thinks of wealth and fame and honor, and of a long, genial,
golden, happy autumn.

Work gives the feeling of independence, of self-respect.
A man who does something necessarily puts a value on
himself. He feels that he is a part of the world's force.
The idler — no matter what he says, no matter how scorn
fully he may look at the laborer — in his very heart knows
exactly what he is ; he knows that he is a counterfeit, a poor
worthless imitation of a man.

But there is a vast difference between work and what I
call "toil." What must be the life of a man who can earn
only one dollar or two dollars a day ? If this man has a
wife and a couple of children how can the family live?
What must they eat? What must they wear? From the
cradle to the coffin they are ignorant of any luxury of life.
If the man is sick, if one of the children dies, how can
doctors and medicines be paid for ? How can the coffin or
the grave be purchased ? These people live on what might
be called " the snow line " — just at that point where trees end
and the mosses begin. What are such lives worth ? The
wages of months would hardly pay for the ordinary dinner
of a family of a rich man. The savings of a whole life
would not purchase one fashionable dress, or the lace on it.
Such a man could not save enough during his whole life to
pay for the flowers of a fashionable funeral.

And yet how often hundreds of thousands of persons, who
spend thousands of dollars every year on luxuries, really
wonder why the laboring people should complain. They
are astonished when a car driver objects to working four
teen hours a day. Men give millions of dollars to carry the
gospel to the heathen, and leave their own neighbors with
out bread ; and these same people insist on closing libraries

328 INTERVIEWS.

and museums of art on Sunday, and yet Sunday is the only
day that these institutions can be visited by the poor.

They even want to stop the street cars so that these
workers, these men and women, cannot go to the parks or
the fields on Sunday. They want stages stopped on fash
ionable avenues so that the rich may not be disturbed in
their prayers and devotions.

The condition of the workingman, even in America, is
bad enough. If free trade will not reduce wages what will ?
If manufactured articles become cheaper the skilled laborers
of America must work cheaper or stop producing the
articles. Every one knows that most of the value of a
manufactured article comes from labor. Think of the differ
ence between the value of a pound of cotton and a pound of
the finest cotton cloth ; between a pound of flax and enough
point lace to weigh a pound ; between a few ounces of
paint, two or three yards of canvas and a great picture;
between a block of stone and a statue ! Labor is the princi
pal factor in price; when the price falls wages must go
down.

I do not claim that protection is for the benefit of any
particular class, but that it is for the benefit not only of that
particular class, but of the entire country. In England the
common laborer expects to spend his old age in some work
house. He is cheered through all his days of toil, through
all his years of weariness, by the prospect of dying a re
spectable pauper. The women work as hard as the men.
They work in the iron mills. They make nails, they dig
coal, they toil in the fields.

In Europe they carry the hod, they work like beasts and
with beasts, until they lose almost the semblance of human
beings — until they look inferior to the animals they drive.
On the labor of ^iese deformed mothers, of these bent and
wrinkled girls, of little boys with the faces of old age, the
heartless nobility live in splendor and extravagant idleness.

INTERVIEWS. 329

I am not now speaking of the French people, as France is
the most prosperous country in Europe.

Let us protect our mothers, our wives and our children
from the deformity of toil, from the depths of poverty.

Question. Is not the ballot an assurance to the laboring
man that he can get fair treatment from his employer ?

Answer. The laboring man in this country has the politi
cal power, provided he has the intelligence to know it and
the intelligence to use it. In so far as laws can assist labor,
the workingman has it in his power to pass such laws ; but
in most foreign lands the laboring man has really no voice.
It is enough for him to work and wait and suffer and emi
grate. He can take refuge in the grave or go to America.

In the old country, where people have been taught that
all blessings come from the king, it is very natural for the
poor to believe the other side of that proposition — that is to
say, all evils come from the king, from the government.
They are rocked in the cradle of this falsehood. So when
they come to this country, if they are unfortunate, it is
natural for them to blame the Government.

The discussion of these questions, however, has already
done great good. The workingman is becoming more and
more intelligent. He is getting a better idea every day of
the functions and powers and limitations of government,
and if the problem is ever worked out — and by " problem " I
mean the just and due relations that should exist between
labor and capital — it will be worked out here in America.

Question. What assurance has the American laborer that
he will not be ultimately swamped by foreign immigration ?

Answer. Most of the immigrants that come to America
come because they want a home. Nearly every one of them
is what you may call "land hungry." In his country, to
own a piece of land was to be respectable, almost a noble
man. The owner of a little land was regarded as the
founder of a family — what you might call a "village dy-

33O INTERVIEWS.

nasty." When they leave their native shores for America,
their dream is to become a land owner — to have fields, to
own trees, and to listen to the music of their own brooks.

The moment they arrive the mass of them seek the West,
where land can be obtained. The great Northwest now is
being filled with Scandinavian farmers, with persons from
every part of Germany — in fact from all foreign countries
— and every year they are adding millions of acres to the
plowed fields of the Republic. This land hunger, this desire
to own a home, to have a field, to have flocks and herds, to
sit under your own vine and fig tree, will prevent foreign
immigration from interfering to any hurtful degree with the
skilled workmen of America. These land owners, these
farmers, become consumers of manufactured articles. They
keep the wheels and spindles turning and the fires in the
forges burning.

Question. What do you think of Cleveland's message?

Answer. Only the other day I read a speech made by the
Hon. William D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, upon this subject,
in which he says in answer to what he calls " the puerile
absurdity of President Cleveland's assumption " that the
duty is always added to the cost, not only of imported com
modities, but to the price of like commodities produced in
this country, " that the duties imposed by our Government
on sugar reduced to ad valorem were never so high as now,
and the price of sugar was never in this county so low as
it is now." He also showed that this tax on sugar has
made it possible for us to produce sugar from other plants
and he gives the facts in relation to corn sugar.

We are now using annually nineteen million bushels of
corn for the purpose of making glucose or corn sugar. He
shows that in this industry alone there has been a capital
invested of eleven million dollars; that seven hundred and
thirty-two thousand acres of land are required to furnish
the supply, and that this one industry now gives employ-

INTERVIEWS. 331

ment to about twenty-two thousand farmers, about five
thousand laborers in factories, and that the annual value
of this product of corn sugar is over seventeen million
dollars.

He also shows what we may expect from the cultivation
of the beet. I advise every one to read that speech, so that
they may have some idea of the capabilities of this country,
of the vast wealth asking for development, of the countless
avenues opened for ingenuity, energy and intelligence.

Question. Does the protective tariff cheapen the prices of
commodities to the laboring man ?

Answer. In this there are involved two questions. If
the tariff is so low that the foreign article is imported, of
course this tariff is added to the cost and must be paid by
the consumer ; but if the protective tariff is so high that the
importer cannot pay it, and as a consequence the article is
produced in America, then it depends largely upon compe
tition whether the full amount of the tariff will be added to
the article. As a rule, competition will settle that question
in America, and the article will be sold as cheaply as the
producers can afford.

For instance : If there is a tariff, we will say of fifty
cents on a pair of shoes, and this tariff is so low that the
foreign article can afford to pay it, then that tariff, of course,
must be paid by the consumer. But suppose the tariff was
five dollars on a pair of shoes — that is to say, absolutely
prohibitory — does any man in his senses say that five dol
lars would be added to each pair of American shoes ? Of
course, the statement is the answer.

I think it is the duty of the laboring man in this
country, first, thoroughly to post himself upon these great
questions, to endeavor to understand his own interest as
well as the interest of his country, and if he does, I believe
he will arrive at the conclusion that it is far better to have
this country filled with manufacturers than to be employed

332 INTERVIEWS.

simply in the raising of raw material. I think he will come
to the conclusion that we had better have skilled labor here,
and that it is better to pay for it than not to have it. I
think he will find that it is better for America to be sub
stantially independent of the rest of the world. I think he
will conclude that nothing is more desirable than the
development of American brain, and that nothing better
can be raised than great and splendid men and women. I
think he will conclude that the cloud coming from the
factories, from the great stacks and chimneys, is the cloud
on which will be seen, and always seen, the bow of Amer
ican promise.

Question. What have you to say about tariff reform ?

Answer. I have this to say : That the tariff is for the
most part the result of compromises — that is, one State
wishing to have something protected agrees to protect
something else in some other State, so that, as a matter of
fact, many things are protected that need no protection, and
many things are unprotected that ought to be cared for by
the Government.

I am in favor of a sensible reform of the tariff — that is
to say, I do not wish to put it in the power of the few to
practice extortion upon the many. Congress should always
be wide awake, and whenever there is any abuse it should be
corrected. At the same time, next to having the tariff just
— next in importance is to have it stable. It does us great
injury to have every dollar invested in manufactures fright
ened every time Congress meets. Capital should feel se
cure. Insecurity calls for a higher interest, wants to make
up for the additional risk, whereas, when a dollar feels ab
solutely certain that it is well invested, that it is not to be
disturbed, it is satisfied with a very low rate of interest.

The present agitation — the message of President Cleve
land upon these questions — will cost the country many
hundred millions of dollars.

INTERVIEWS. 333

Question. I see that some one has been charging that
Judge Gresham is an Infidel ?

Answer. I have known Judge Gresham for many years,
and of course have heard him talk upon many subjects, but
I do not remember ever discussing with him a religious
topic. I only know that he believes in allowing every man
to express his opinions, and that he does not hate a man
because he differs with him. I believe that he believes in
intellectual hospitality,and that he would give all churches
equal rights, and would treat them all with the utmost
fairness. I regard him as a fair-minded, intelligent and
honest man, and that is enough for me. I am satisfied
with the way he acts, and care nothing about his particular
creed. I like a manly man, whether he agrees with me or
not. I believe that President Garfield was a minister of
the Church of the Disciples — that made no difference to me.
Mr. Elaine is a member of some church in Augusta — I
care nothing for that. Whether Judge Gresham belongs to
any church, I do not know. I never asked him, but I
know he does not agree with me by a large majority.

In this country, where a divorce has been granted between
church and state, the religious opinions of candidates should
be let alone. To make the inquiry is a piece of imperti
nence — a piece of impudence. I have voted for men of all
persuasions and expect to keep right on, and if they are not
civilized enough to give me the liberty they ask for them
selves, why I shall simply set them an example of decency.

Question. What do you think of the political outlook ?

Answer. The people of this country have a great deal of
intelligence. Tariff and free trade and protection and home
manufactures and American industries — all these things
will be discussed in every schoolhouse of the country, and
in thousands and thousands of political meetings, and when
next November comes you will see the Democratic party
overthrown and swept out of power by a cyclone. All other

334 INTERVIEWS.

questions will be lost sight of. Even the Prohibitionists
would rather drink beer in a prosperous country than burst
with cold water and hard times.

The preservation of what we have will be the great
question. This is the richest country and the most pros
perous country, and I believe that the people have sense
enough to continue the policy that has given them these
results. I never want to see the civilization of the Old
World, or rather the barbarism of the Old World, gain a
footing on this continent. I am an American. I believe
in American ideas — that is to say, in equal rights, and in
the education and civilization of all the people. — New York

Press, June 3, 1888.

CLEVELAND AND THURMAN.

Question. What do you think of the Democratic nomin
ations ?

Answer. In the first place, I hope that this campaign is
to be fought on the issues involved, and not on the private
characters of the candidates. All that they have done as
politicians — all measures that they have favored or opposed
— these are the proper subjects of criticism ; in all other
respects I think it better to let the candidates alone. I
care but little about the private character of Mr. Cleveland
or of Mr. Thurman. The real question is, what do they
stand for ? What policy do they advocate ? What are the
reasons for and against the adoption of the policy they
propose ?

I do not regard Cleveland as personally popular. He
has done nothing, so far as I know, calculated to endear
him to the popular heart. He certainly is not a man of
enthusiasm. He has said nothing of a striking or forcible
character. His messages are exceedingly commonplace.
He is not a man of education, of wide reading, of refined
tastes, or of general cultivation. He has some firmness

INTERVIEWS. 335

and a good deal of obstinacy, and he was exceedingly for
tunate in his marriage.

Four years ago he was distinctly opposed to a second
term. He was then satisfied that no man should be elected
President more than once. He was then fearful that a
President might use his office, his appointing power, to
further his own ends instead of for the good of the people.
He started, undoubtedly, with that idea in his mind. He
was going to carry out the civil service doctrine to the
utmost. But when he had been President a few months
he was exceedingly unpopular with his party. The
Democrats who elected him had been out of office for
twenty-five years. During all those years they had
watched the Republicans sitting at the national banquet.
Their appetites had grown keener and keener, and they ex
pected when the 4th of March, 1885, came that the Repub
licans would be sent from the table and that they would
be allowed to tuck the napkins under their chins. The mo
ment Cleveland got at the head of the table he told his
hungry followers that there was nothing for them, and he
allowed the Republicans to go on as usual.

In a little while he began to hope for a second term, and
gradually the civil service notion faded from his mind. He
stuck to it long enough to get the principal mugwump
papers committed to him and to his policy ; long enough
to draw their fire and to put them in a place where they
could not honorably retreat without making themselves
liable to the charge of having fought only for the loaves
and fishes. As a matter of fact, no men were hungrier for
office than the gentlemen who had done so much for civil
service reform. They were so earnest in the advocacy of
that principle that they insisted that only their followers
should have place ; but the real rank and file, the men who
had been Democrats through all the disastrous years, and
who had prayed and fasted, became utterly disgusted with

336 INTERVIEWS.

Mr. Cleveland's administration and they were not slow to
express their feelings. Mr. Cleveland saw that he was in
danger of being left with no supporters, except a few who
thought themselves too respectable really to join the Demo
cratic party. So for the last two years, and especially for
the last year, he turned his attention to pacifying the real
Democrats. He is not the choice of the Democratic party.
Although unanimously nominated, I doubt if he was the
unanimous choice of a single delegate.

Another very great mistake, I think, has been made by
Mr. Cleveland. He seems to have taken the greatest de
light in vetoing pension bills, and they seem to be about the
only bills that he has examined, and he has examined them
as a lawyer would examine the declaration, brief or plea
of his opponent. He has sought for technicalities, to the
end that he might veto these bills. By this course he has
lost the soldier vote, and there is no way by which he can
regain it. Upon this point I regard the President as ex
ceedingly weak. He has shown about the same feeling
toward the soldier now that he did during the war. He was
not with them then either in mind or body. He is not with
them now. His sympathies are on the other side. He has
taken occasion to show his contempt for the Democratic
party again and again. This certainly will not add to his
strength. He has treated the old leaders with great arro
gance. He has cared nothing for their advice, for their
opinions, or for their feelings.

The principal vestige of monarchy or despotism in our
Constitution is the veto power, and this has been more
liberally used by Mr. Cleveland than by any other Presi
dent. This shows the nature of the man and how narrow
he is, and through what a small intellectual aperture he
views the world. Nothing is farther from true democracy
than this perpetual application of the veto power. As a
matter of fact, it should be abolished, and the utmost that a

INTERVIEWS. 337

President should be allowed to do, would be to return a bill
with his objections, and the bill should then become a law
on being passed by both houses by a simple majority.
This would give the Executive the opportunity of calling
attention to the supposed defects, and getting the judgment
of Congress a second time.

I am perfectly satisfied that Mr. Cleveland is not popular
with his party. The noise and confusion at the convention,
the cheers and cries, were all produced and manufactured
for effect and for the purpose of starting the campaign.

Now, as to Senator Thurman. During the war he occu
pied substantially the same position occupied by Mr. Cleve
land. He was opposed to putting down the Rebellion by
force, and as I remember it, he rather justified the people
of the South for going with their States. Ohio was in favor
of putting down the Rebellion, yet Mr. Thurman, by some
peculiar logic of his own, while he justified Southern peo
ple for going into rebellion because they followed their
States, justified himself for not following his State. His
State was for the Union. His State was in favor of putting
down rebellion. His State was in favor of destroying
slavery. Certainly, if a man is bound to follow his State,
he is equally bound when the State is right. It is hardly
reasonable to say that a man is only bound to follow his
State when his State is wrong ; yet this was really the
position of Senator Thurman.

I saw the other day that some gentlemen in this city had
given as a reason for thinking that Thurman would
strengthen the ticket, that he had always been right on the
financial question. Now, as a matter of fact, he was al
ways wrong. When it was necessary for the Government
to issue greenbacks, he was a hard money man — he believed
in the mint drops — and if that policy had been carried out,
the Rebellion could not have been suppressed. After the
suppression of the Rebellion, and when hundreds and

338 INTERVIEWS.

hundreds of millions of greenbacks were afloat, and the
Republican party proposed to redeem them in gold, and to
go back — as it always intended to do — to hard money — to
a gold and silver basis — then Senator Thurman, holding
aloft the red bandanna, repudiated hard money, opposed
resumption, and came out for rag currency as being the
best. Let him change his ideas — put those first that he had
last — and you might say that he was right on the currency
question ; but when the country needed the greenback he
was opposed to it, and when the country was able to redeem
the greenback, he was opposed to it.

It gives me pleasure to say that I regard Senator Thur
man as a man of ability, and I have no doubt that he
was coaxed into his last financial position by the Demo
cratic party, by the necessities of Ohio, and by the force and
direction of the political wind. No matter how much re
spectability he adds to the ticket, I do not believe that he
will give any great strength. In the first place, he is an
old man. He has substantially finished his career. Young
men cannot attach themselves to him, because he has no
future. His following is not an army of the young and am
bitious — it is rather a funeral procession. Yet, notwith
standing this fact, he will furnish most of the enthusiasm
for this campaign — and that will be done with his handker
chief. The Democratic banner is Thurman's red bandanna.
I do not believe that it will be possible for the Democracy
to carry Ohio by reason of Thurman's nomination, and I
think the failure to nominate Gray or some good man
from that State, will lose Indiana. So, while I have noth
ing to say against Senator Thurman, nothing against his
integrity or his ability, still, under the circumstances, I do
not think his nomination a strong one.

Question. Do you think that the nominations have been
well received throughout the United States ?

Answer. Not as well as in England. I see that all the

INTERVIEWS. 339

Tory papers regard the nominations as excellent — especi
ally that of Cleveland. Every Englishman who wants
Ireland turned into a penitentiary, and every Irishman to
be treated as a convict, is delighted with the action of the
St. Louis convention. England knows what she wants.
Her market is growing small. A few years ago she fur
nished manufactured articles to a vast portion of the world.
Millions of her customers have become ingenious enough
to manufacture many things that they need, so the next
thing England did was to sell them the machinery. Now
they are beginning to make their own machinery. Conse
quently, English trade is falling off. She must have new
customers. Nothing would so gratify her as to have sixty
millions of Americans buy her wares. If she could see our
factories still and dead ; if she could put out the fires of our
furnaces and forges ; there would come to her the greatest
prosperity she has ever known. She would fatten on our
misfortunes — grow rich and powerful and arrogant upon
our poverty. We would become her servants. We would
raise the raw material with ignorant labor and allow her
children to reap all the profit of its manufacture, and in the
meantime to become intelligent and cultured while we grew
poor and ignorant.

The greatest blow that can be inflicted upon England is
to keep her manufactured articles out of the United States.
Sixty millions of Americans buy and use more than five
hundred millions of Asiatics — buy and use more than all
of China, all of India and all of Africa. One civilized man
has a thousand times the wants of a savage or of a semi-
barbarian. Most of the customers of England want a few
yards of calico, some cheap jewelry, a little powder, a few
knives and a few gallons of orthodox rum.

To-day the United States is the greatest market in the
world. The commerce between the States is almost incon
ceivable in its immensity. In order that you may have

34O INTERVIEWS.

some idea of the commerce of this country, it is only neces
sary to remember one fact. We have railroads enough en
gaged in this commerce to make six lines around the
globe. The addition of a million Americans to our popu
lation gives us a better market than a monopoly of ten
millions of Asiatics. England, with her workhouses, with
her labor that barely exists, wishes this market, and wishes
to destroy the manufactures of America, and she expects
Irish- Americans to assist her in this patriotic business.

Now, as to the enthusiasm in this country. I fail to see
it. The nominations have fallen flat. There is no enthusi
asm among the Democrats. It has been known for a long
time that Cleveland was to be nominated. That has all
been discounted, and the nomination of Judge Thurman
has been received in a quite matter-of-fact way. It may be
that this enthusiasm was somewhat dampened by what
might be called the appearance above the horizon of the
morning star of this campaign — Oregon. What a star to
rise over the work of the St. Louis convention ! What a
prophecy for Democrats to commence business with !
Oregon, with the free trade issue, seven thousand to eight
thousand Republican majority — the largest ever given by
that State — Oregon speaks for the Pacific Coast.

Question. What do you think of the Democratic plat
form ?

Answer. Mr. Watterson was kind enough to say that be
fore they took the roof off the house they were going to
give the occupants a chance to get out. By the " house " I
suppose he means the great workshop of America. By the
" roof" he means protection ; and by the " occupants " the
mechanics. He is not going to turn them out at once, or
take the roof off in an instant, but this is to be done gradu
ally.

In other words, they will remove it shingle by shingle,
or tile by tile, until it becomes so leaky or so unsafe that

INTERVIEWS. 341

the occupants — that is to say, the mechanics, will leave
the building.

The first thing in the platform is a reaffirmation of the
platform of 1884, and an unqualified endorsement of Presi
dent Cleveland's message on the tariff. And if President
Cleveland's message has any meaning whatever, it means
free trade — not instantly, it may be — but that is the object
and the end to be attained. All his reasoning, if reasoning it
can be called, is in favor of absolute free trade. The issue
is fairly made — shall American labor be protected, or must
the American laborer take his chances with the labor
market of the world ? Must he stand upon an exact par
with the laborers of Belgium and England and Germany,
not only, but with the slaves and serfs of other countries?
Must he be reduced to the diet of the old country ? Is he
to have meat on holidays and a reasonably good dinner on
Christmas, and live the rest of the year on crusts, crumbs,
scraps, skimmed milk, potatoes, turnips and a few greens
that he can steal from the corners of fences ? Is he to rely
for meat, on poaching, and then is he to be transported to
some far colony for the crime of catching a rabbit ? Are
our workingmen to wear wooden shoes ?

Now, understand me, I do not believe that the Demo
crats think that free trade would result in disaster. Their
minds are so constituted that they really believe that free
trade would be a great blessing. I am not calling in ques
tion their honesty. I am simply disputing the correctness
of their theory. It makes no difference, as a matter of fact,
whether they are honest or dishonest. Free trade estab
lished by honest people would be just as injurious as
if established by dishonest people. So there is no
necessity of raising the question of intention. Conse
quently, I admit that they are doing the best they know
how. This is not admitting much, but it is something,
as it tends to take from the discussion all ill feeling.

342 INTERVIEWS.

We all know that the tariff protects special interests in par
ticular States. Louisiana is not for free trade. It may be for
free trade in everything except sugar. It is willing that all
the rest of the country should pay an additional cent or two
a pound on sugar for its benefit, and while receiving that
benefit it does not wish to bear its part of the burden. If
the other States protect the sugar interests in Louisiana,
certainly that State ought to be willing to protect the wool
interest in Ohio, the lead and hemp interest in Missouri,
the lead and wool interest in Colorado, the lumber interest
in Minnesota, the salt and lumber interest in Michigan,
the iron interest in Pennsylvania, and so I might go on
with a list of the States — because each one has something
that it wishes to have protected.

It sounds a little strange to hear a Democratic convention
cry out that the party " is in favor of the maintenance of an
indissoluble union of free and indestructible States." Only
a little while ago the Democratic party regarded it as the
height of tyranny to coerce a free State. Can it be said
that a State is " free" that is absolutely governed by the
Nation ? Is a State free that can make no treaty with any
other State or country — that is not permitted to coin money
or to declare war ? Why should such a State be called
free ? The truth is that the States are not free in that sense.
The Republican party believes that this is a Nation and
that the national power is the highest, and that every citi
zen owes the highest allegiance to the General Government
and not to his State. In other words, we are not Virginians
or Mississippians or Delawarians — we are Americans. The
great Republic is a free Nation, and the States are but
parts of that Nation. The doctrine of State Sovereignty
was born of the institution of slavery. In the history of
our country, whenever anything wrong was to be done,
this doctrine of State Sovereignty was appealed to. It
protected the slave-trade until the year 1808. It passed

INTERVIEWS. 343

the Fugitive Slave Law. It made every citizen in the
North a catcher of his fellow-men — made it the duty of
free people to enslave others. This doctrine of State Rights
was appealed to for the purpose of polluting the Territories
with the institution of slavery. To deprive a man of his
liberty, to put him back into slavery, State lines were in
stantly obliterated ; but whenever the Government wanted
to protect one of its citizens from outrage, then the State
lines became impassable barriers, and the sword of justice
fell in twain across the line of a State.

People forget that the National Government is the creature
of the people. The real sovereign is the people them
selves. Presidents and congressmen and judges are the
creatures of the people. If we had a governing class — if
men were presidents or senators by virtue of birth — then
we might talk about the danger of centralization ; but if
the people are sufficiently intelligent to govern themselves,
they will never create a government for the destruction of
their liberties, and they are just as able to protect their
rights in the General Government as they are in the States.
If you say that the sovereignty of the State protects labor,
you might as well say that the sovereignty of the county
protects labor in the State and that the sovereignty of the
town protects labor in the county.

Of all subjects in the world the Democratic party should
avoid speaking of " a critical period of our financial affairs,
resulting from over taxation." How did taxation become
necessary? Who created the vast debt that American
labor must pay ? Who made this taxation of thousands
of millions necessary? Why were the greenbacks issued?
Why were the bonds sold ? Who brought about "a critical
period of our financial affairs " ? How has the Democratic
party " averted disaster "? How could there be a disaster
with a vast surplus in the treasury ? Can you find in the
graveyard of nations this epitaph: "Died of a Surplus"?

344 INTERVIEWS.

Has any nation ever been known to perish because it had
too much gold and too much silver, and because its credit
was better than that of any other nation on the earth ?
The Democrats seem to think — and it is greatly to their
credit — that they have prevented the destruction of the
Government when the treasury was full — when the vaults
were overflowing. What would they have done had the
vaults been empty ? Let them wrestle with the question of
poverty ; let them then see how the Democratic party would
succeed. When it is necessary to create credit, to inspire
confidence, not only in our own people, but in the nations
of the world — \vhich of the parties is best adapted for that
task? The Democratic party congratulates itself that it.
has not been ruined by a Republican surplus ! What good
boys we are ! We have not been able to throw away our
legacy !

Is it not a little curious that the convention plumed
itself on having paid out more for pensions and bounties
to the soldiers and sailors of the Republic than was ever
paid before during an equal period ? It goes wild in its
pretended enthusiasm for the President who has vetoed
more pension bills than all the other Presidents put together.

The platform informs us that " the Democratic party has
adopted and consistently pursued and affirmed a prudent
foreign policy, preserving peace with all nations. " Does
it point with pride to the Mexican fiasco, or does it rely
entirely upon the great fishery triumph ? What has the
administration done — what has it accomplished in the field
of diplomacy ?

When we come to civil service, about how many Federal
officials were at the St. Louis convention? About how
many have taken part in the recent nominations ? In
other words, who has been idle ?

We have recently been told that the wages of working-
men are just as high in the old country as in this, when you

INTERVIEWS. 345

take into consideration the cost of living. We have always
been told by all the free trade papers and orators, that the
tariff has no bearing whatever upon wages, and yet, the
Democrats have not succeeded in convincing themselves.
I find in their platform this language : "A fair and careful
revision of our tax laws, with due allowance for the differ
ence between the wages of American and foreign labor,
must promote and encourage every branch of such indus
tries and enterprises by giving them the assurance of an
extended market and steady and continuous operations. "
It would seem from this that the Democratic party ad
mits that wages are higher here than in foreign countries.
Certainly they do not mean to say that they arc lower. If
they are higher here than in foreign countries, the question
arises, why are they higher ? If you took off all the tariff,
the presumption is that they would be as low here as any
where else, because this very Democratic convention says :
"A fair and careful revision of our tax laws, with due
allowance for the difference between wages." In other
words, they would keep tariff enough on to protect our
workingmen from the low wages of the foreigner — con
sequently, we have the admission of the Democratic party
that in order to keep wages in this country higher than
they are in Belgium, in Italy, in England and in Germany,
we must protect home labor. Then follows the non
sequitur, which is a Democratic earmark. They tell us
that by keeping a tariff, " making due allowance for the
difference between wages, all the industries and enterprises
would be encouraged and promoted by giving them the
assurance of an extended market." What does the word
" extended" mean ? If it means anything, it means a mar
ket in other countries. In other words, we will put the
tariff so low that the wages of American workingmen will
be so low that he can compete with the laborers of other
countries ; otherwise, his market could not be " extended."

346 INTERVIEWS.

What does this mean ? There is evidently a lack of thought
here. The two things cannot be accomplished in that way.
If the tariff raises American wages, the American cannot
compete in foreign markets with the men who work at
half the price. What may be the final result is another
question. American industry properly protected, American
genius properly fostered, may invent ways and means —
such wonderful machinery, such quick, inexpensive pro
cesses, that in time American genius may produce at a less
rate than any other country, for the reason that the laborers
of other countries will not be as intelligent, will not be as
independent, will not have the same ambition.

Fine phrases will not deceive the peopleNof this country.
The American mechanic already has a market of sixty
millions of people, and, as I said before, the best market in
the world. This country is now so rich, so prosperous,
that it is the greatest market of the earth, even for luxuries.
It is the best market for pictures, for works of art. It
is the best market for music and song. It is the best mar
ket for dramatic genius, and it is the best market for
skilled labor, the best market for common labor, and in
this country the poor man to-day has the best chance — he
can look forward to becoming the proprietor of a home, of
some land, to independence, to respectability, and to an old
age without want and without disgrace.

The platform, except upon this question of free trade,
means very little. There are other features in it which I
have not at present time to examine, but shall do so here
after. I want to take it up point by point and find really
what it means, what its scope is, and what the intentions
were of the gentlemen that made it.

But it may be proper to say here, that in my judgment
it is a very weak and flimsy document, as Victor Hugo
would say, "badly cut and badly sewed."

Of course, I know that the country will exist whatever

INTERVIEWS. 347

party may be in power. I know that all our blessings do
not come from laws, or from the carrying into effect of cer
tain policies, and probably I could pay no greater compli
ment to my country than to say that even eight years of
Democratic rule cannot materially affect her destiny. —

New York Press, June 10, 1888.

THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM OF 1888.

Question. What do you think of the signs of the times so
far as the campaign has progressed ?

Answer. The party is now going through a period of mis
representation. Every absurd meaning that can be given
to any combination of words will be given to every part of
the platform. In the heat of partisan hatred every plank
will look warped and cracked. A great effort is being
made to show that the Republican party is in favor of in
temperance, — that the great object now is to lessen the price
of all intoxicants and increase the cost of all the necessaries
of life. The papers that are for nothing but reform of
everything and everybody except themselves, are doing
their utmost to show that the Republican party is the enemy
of honesty and temperance.

The other day, at a Republican ratification meeting, I
stated among other things, that we could not make great
men and great women simply by keeping them out of tempta
tion — that nobody would think of tying the hands of a per
son behind him and then praise him for not picking pockets ;
that great people were great enough to withstand tempta
tion, and in that connection I made this statement: "Tem
perance goes hand in hand with liberty — " the idea being
that when a chain is taken from the body an additional obli
gation is perceived by the mind. These good papers —
the papers that believe in honest politics — stated that I
said: "Temperance goes hand in hand with liquor." This
was not only in the reports of the meeting, but this passage

348 INTERVIEWS.

was made the subject of several editorials. It hardly seems
possible that any person really thought that such a senti
ment had been expressed. The Republican party does not
want free whiskey — it wants free men ; and a great many
people in the Republican party are great enough to know
that temperance does go hand in hand with liberty ; they are
great enough to know that all legislation as to what we shall
eat, as to what we shall drink, and as to wherewithal we
shall be clothed, partakes of the nature of petty, irritating
and annoying tyranny. They also know that the natural
result is to fill a country with spies, hypocrites and pre
tenders, and that when a law is not in accordance with an
enlightened public sentiment, it becomes either a dead letter,
or, when a few fanatics endeavor to enforce it, a demoralizer
of courts, of juries and of people.

The attack upon the platform by temperance people is
doing no harm, for the reason that long before November
comes these people will see the mistake they have made. It
seems somewhat curious that the Democrats should attack
the platform if they really believe that it means free whis
key.

The tax was levied during the war. It was a war
measure. The Government was in extremis, and for that
reason was obliged to obtain a revenue from every possible
article of value. The war is over ; the necessity has dis
appeared; consequently the Government should return to
the methods of peace. We have too many Government
officers. Let us get rid of collectors and gaugers and in
spectors. Let us do away with all this machinery, and leave
the question to be settled by the State. If the temperance
people themselves would take a second thought, they
would see that when the Government collects eighty
or ninety million dollars from a tax on whiskey, the
traffic becomes entrenched, it becomes one of the pillars of
the State, one of the great sources of revenue. Let the

INTERVIEWS. 349

States attend to this question, and it will be a matter far
easier to deal with.

The Prohibitionists are undoubtedly honest, and their
object is to destroy the traffic, to prevent the manufacture of
whiskey. Can they do this as long as the Government col
lects ninety million dollars per annum from that one source?
If there is anything whatever in this argument, is it not that
the traffic pays a bribe of ninety million dollars a year for
its life ? Will not the farmers say to the temperance men :
"The distilleries pay the taxes, the distilleries raise the
price of corn ; is it not better for the General Government
to look to another direction for its revenues and leave the
States to deal as they may see proper with this question ? "

With me, it makes no difference what is done with the
liquor — whether it is used in the arts or not — it is a question
of policy. There is no moral principle involved on our side
of the question, to say the least of it. If it is a crime to
make and sell intoxicating liquors, the Government, by
licensing persons to make and sell, becomes a party to the
crime. If one man poisons another, no matter how much the
poison costs, the crime is the same ; and if the person from
whom the poison was purchased knew how it was to be used,
he is also a murderer.

There have been many reformers in this world, and they
have seemed to imagine that people will do as they say.
They think that you can use people as you do bricks or
stones; that you can lay them up in walls and they will
remain where they are placed; but the truth is, you cannot
do this. The bricks are not satisfied with each other — thej
go away in the night — in the morning there is no wall.
Most of these reformers go up what you might call the
Mount Sinai of their own egotism, and there, surrounded by
the clouds of their own ignorance, they meditate upon the
follies and the frailties of their fellow-men and then come
down with ten commandments for their neighbors.

350 INlERVIEWS.

All this talk about the Republican platform being in favor
of intemperance, so far as the Democratic party is concerned,
is pure, unadulterated hypocrisy — nothing more, nothing
less. So far as the Prohibitionists are concerned, they may
be perfectly honest, but, if they will think a moment, they
will see how perfectly illogical they are. No one can help
sympathizing with any effort honestly made to do away with
the evil of intemperance. I know that many believe that
these evils can be done away with by legislation. While I
sympathize with the objects that these people wish to attain,
I do not believe in the means they suggest. As life be
comes valuable, people will become temperate, because they
will take care of themselves. Temperance is born of the
countless influences of civilization. Character cannot be
forced upon anybody ; it is a growth, the seeds of which are
within. Men cannot be forced into real temperance any
more than they can be frightened into real morality. You
may frighten a man to that degree that he will not do a cer
tain thing, but you cannot scare him badly enough to pre
vent his wanting to do that thing. Reformation begins on
the inside, and the man refrains because he perceives that
he ought to refrain, not because his neighbors say that he
ought to refrain. No one would think of praising convicts
in a jail for being regular at their meals, or for not staying
out nights; and it seems to me that when the Prohibi
tionists — when the people who are really in favor of tem
perance — look the ground all over they will see that it is far
better to support the Republican party than the Democratic
— far better to support the Republican party than to throw
their votes away ; and the Republicans will see that it is
simply a proposition to go back to the original methods of
collecting revenue for the Government — that it is simply
abandoning the measures made necessary by war, and that
it is giving to the people the largest liberty consistent with
the needs of the Government, and that it is only leaving

INTERVIEWS. 351

these questions where in time of peace they properly belong
— to the States themselves.

Question. Do you think that the Knights of Labor will
cut any material figure in this election ?

Answer. The Knights of Labor will probably occupy
substantially the same position as other laborers and other
mechanics. If they clearly see that the policy advocated
by the Republican party is to their interest, that it will
give them better wages than the policy advocated by the
Democrats, then they will undoubtedly support our ticket.
There is more or less irritation between employers and em
ployed. All men engaged in manufacturing are neither
good nor generous. Many of them get work for as little as
possible, and sell its product for all they can get. It is
impossible to adopt a policy that will not by such people
be abused. Many of them would like to see the working
man toil for twelve hours or fourteen or sixteen in each
day. Many of them wonder why they need sleep or food,
and are perfectly astonished when they ask for pay. In
some instances, undoubtedly, the working men will vote
against their own interests simply to get even with such
employers.

Some laboring men have been so robbed, so tyrannized
over, that they would be perfectly willing to feel for the
pillars and take a certain delight in a destruction that
brought ruin even to themselves. Such manufacturers,
however, I believe to be in a minority, and the laboring
men, under the policy of free trade, would be far more in
their power. When wages fall below a certain point, then
conies degradation, loss of manhood, serfdom and slavery.
If any man has the right to vote for his o\vn interests,
certainly the man who labors is that man, and every work
ing man having in his will a part of the sovereignty of this
nation, having within him a part of the lawmaking power,
should have the intelligence and courage to vote for his

352 INTERVIEWS.

own interests ; he should vote for good wages ; he should
vote for a policy that would enable him to lay something
by for the winter of his life, that would enable him to earn
enough to educate his children, enough to give him a home
and a fireside.

He need not do this in anger or for revenge, but because
it is just, because it is right, and because the working peo
ple are in a majority. They ought to control the world,
because they have made the world what it is. They have
given everything there is of value. Labor plows every
field, builds every house, fashions everything of use, and
when that labor is guided by intelligence the world is
prosperous.

He who thinks good thoughts is a laborer — one of the
greatest. The man who invented the reaper will be har
vesting the fields for thousands of years to come. If labor
is abused in this country the laborers have it within their
power to defend themselves.

All my sympathies are with the men who toil. I shed
very few tears over bankers and millionaires and corpora
tions — they can take care of themselves. My sympathies
are with the man who has nothing to sell but his strength ;
nothing to sell but his muscle and his intelligence; who
has no capital except that which his mother gave him — a
capital that he must sell every day ; my sympathies are
with him; and I want him to have a good market; and I
want it so that he can sell the work for more than enough
to take care of him to-morrow.

I believe that no corporation should be allowed to exist
except for the benefit of the whole people. The Govern
ment should always act for the benefit of all, and when the
Government gives a part of its power to an aggregation of
individuals, the accomplishment of some public good
should justify the giving of that power; and whenever a
corporation becomes subversive of the very end for which

INTERVIEWS. 353

it was created, the Government should put an end to its
life.

So I believe that after these matters, these issues, have
been discussed — when something is understood about the
effect of a tariff, the effect of protection, the laboring peo
ple of this country will be on the side of the Republican
party. The Republican party is always trying to do some
thing — trying to take a step in advance. Persons who care
for nothing except themselves — who wish to make no effort
except for themselves — are its natural enemies.

Question. What do you think of Mr. Mills' Fourth of
July speech on his bill ?

Answer. Certain allowances should always be made for
the Fourth of July. What Mr. Mills says with regard to
free trade depends, I imagine, largely on where he happens
to be. You remember the old story about the Moniteur.
When Napoleon escaped from Elba that paper said : " The
ogre has escaped." And from that moment the epithets
grew a little less objectionable as Napoleon advanced, and
at last the Moniteur cried out : " The Emperor has reached
Paris." I hardly believe that Mr. Mills would call his bill
in Texas a war tariff measure. He might commence in
New York with that description, but as he went South that
language, in my judgment, would change, and when he
struck the Brazos I think the bill would be described as
the nearest possible approach to free trade.

Mr. Mills takes the ground that if raw material comes
here free of duty, then we can manufacture that raw
material and compete with other countries in the markets
of the world — that is to say, under his bill. Now, other
countries can certainly get the raw material as cheaply as
we can, especially those countries in which the raw ma
terial is raised; and if wages are less in other countries
than in ours, the raw material being the same, the product
must cost more with us than with them. Consequently we

354 INTERVIEWS.

cannot compete with foreign countries simply by getting
the raw material at the same price ; we must be able to man
ufacture it as cheaply as they, and we can do that only by
cutting down the wages of the American workingmen. Be
cause, to have raw material at the same price as other na
tions, is only a part of the problem. The other part is,
how cheaply can we manufacture it ? And that depends
upon wages. If wages are twenty -five cents a day, then we
can compete with those nations where wages are twenty-
five cents a day ; but if our wages are five or six times as
high, then the twenty -five cent labor will supply the market.
There is no possible way of putting ourselves on an equality
with other countries in the markets of the world, except by
putting American labor on an equality with the other labor
of the world. Consequently, we cannot obtain a foreign
market without lessening our wages. No proposition can
be plainer than this.

It cannot be said too often that the real prosperity of a
country depends upon the well-being of those who labor.
That country is not prosperous where a few are wealthy
and have all luxuries that the imagination can suggest, and
where the millions are in want, clothed in rags, and housed
in tenements not fit for wild beasts. The value of our
property depends on the civilization of our people. If the
people are happy and contented, if the workingtnan re
ceives good wages, then our houses and our farms are val
uable. If the people are discontented, if the workingmen
are in want, then our property depreciates from day to day,
and national bankruptcy will only be a question of time.

If Mr. Mills has given a true statement with regard to
the measure proposed by him, what relation does that
measure bear to the President's message ? What has it to
do with the Democratic platform ? If Mr. Mills has made
no mistake, the President wrote a message substantially in
favor of free trade. The Democratic party ratified and

INTERVIEWS. 355

indorsed that message, and at the same time ratified and
indorsed the Mills bill. Now, the message was for free
trade, and the Mills bill, according to Mr. Mills, is for the
purpose of sustaining the war tariff. They have either got
the wrong child or the wrong parents.

Question. I see that some people are objecting to your
taking any part in politics, on account of your religious
opinion ?

Answer. The Democratic party has always been pious.
If it is noted for anything it is for its extreme devotion.
You have no idea how many Democrats wear out the
toes of their shoes praying. I suppose that in this country
there ought to be an absolute divorce between church and
state and without any alimony being allowed to the church ;
and I have always supposed that the Republican party
was perfectly willing that anybody should vote its ticket
who believed in its principles. The party was not estab
lished, as I understand it, in the interest of any particular de
nomination ; it was established to promote and preserve the
freedom of the American citizen everywhere. Its first ob
ject was to prevent the spirit of human slavery ; its second
object was to put down the Rebellion and preserve the
Union ; its third object was the utter destruction of human
slavery everywhere, and its fourth object is to preserve not
only the fruit of all that it has done, but to protect Ameri
can industry to the end that the Republic may not only be
free, but prosperous and happy. In this great work all are
invited to join, no matter whether Catholics or Presbyte
rians or Methodists or Infidels — believers or unbelievers.
The object is to have a majority of the people of the
United States in favor of human liberty, in favor of justice
and in favor of an intelligent American policy.

I am not what is called strictly orthodox, and yet I am
liberal enough to vote for a Presbyterian, and if a Presby
terian is not liberal enough to stand by a Republican, no

356 INTERVIEWS.

matter what his religious opinions may be, then the Presby
terian is not as liberal as the Republican party, and he is
not as liberal as an unbeliever; in other words, he is not a
manly man.

I object to no man who is running for office on the
ticket of my party on account of his religious convictions.
I care nothing about the church of which he is a member.
That is his business. That is an individual matter — some
thing with which the State has no right to interfere — some
thing with which no party can rightfully have anything to
do. These great questions are left open to discussion.
Every church must take its chance in the open field of de
bate. No belief has the right to draw the sword — no dogma
the right to resort to force. The moment a church asks for
the help of the State, it confesses its weakness, it confesses
its inability to answer the arguments against it.

I believe in the absolute equality before the law, of all
religions and of all metaphysical theories ; and I would no
more control those things by law than I would endeavor to
control the arts and the sciences by legislation. Man ad-
mires the beautiful, and what is beautiful to one may not
be to another, and this inequality or this difference cannot
be regulated by law.

The same is true of what is called religious belief. I am
willing to give all others every right that I claim for my
self, and if they are not willing to give me the rights they
claim for themselves, they are not civilized.

No man acknowledges the truth of my opinions because
he votes the same ticket that I do, and I certainly do not
acknowledge the correctness of the opinions of others
because I vote the Republican ticket. We are Republi
cans together. Upon certain political questions we agree ;
upon other questions we disagree — and that is all. Only
religious people, who have made up their minds to vote
the Democratic ticket, will raise an objection of this kind,

INTERVIEWS. 357

and they will raise the objection simply as a pretence,
simply for the purpose of muddying the water while they
escape.

Of course there may be some exceptions. There are a
great many insane people out of asylums. If the Republi
can party does not stand for absolute intellectual liberty,
it had better disband. And why should we take so much
pains to free the body, and then enslave the mind ? I
believe in giving liberty to both. Give every man the
right to labor, and give him the right to reap the harvest
of his toil. Give every man the right to think, and to reap
the harvest of his brain — that is to say, give him the right

tO express his thoughts. — New York Press, July 8, 1888.

JAMES G. ELAINE AND POLITICS.

Question. I see that there has lately been published a
long account of the relations between Mr. Elaine and your
self, and the reason given for your failure to support him
for the nomination in 1884 and 1888 ?

Answer. Every little while some donkey writes a long
article pretending to tell all that happened between Mr.
Elaine and myself. I have never seen any article on the
subject that contained any truth. They are always the
invention of the writer or of somebody who told him. The
last account is more than usually idiotic. An unpleasant
word has never passed between Mr. Elaine and myself. We
have never had any falling out. I never asked Mr. Elaine's
influence for myself. I never asked President Hayes or
Garfield or Arthur for any position whatever, and I have
never asked Mr. Cleveland for any appointment under the
civil service.

With regard to the German Mission, about which so much
has been said, all that I ever did in regard to that was to
call on Secretary Evarts and inform him that there was no
place in the gift of the administration that I would accept.

358 INTERVIEWS.

I could not afford to throw away a good many thousand
dollars a year for the sake of an office. So I say again that
I never asked, or dreamed of asking, any such favor of Mr.
Elaine. The favors have been exactly the other way — from
me, and not from him. So there is not the slightest truth
in the charge that there was some difference between our
families.

I have great respect for Mrs. Elaine, have always con
sidered her an extremely good and sensible woman ; our
relations have been of the friendliest character, and
such relations have always existed between all the members
of both families, so far as I know. Nothing could be more
absurd than the charge that there was some feeling grow
ing out of our social relations. We do not depend upon
others to help us socially ; we need no help, and if we did
we would not accept it. The whole story about there hav
ing been any lack of politeness or kindness is without the
slightest foundation.

In 1884 I did not think that Mr. Elaine could be elected.
I thought the same at the Chicago convention this year. I
know that he has a great number of ardent admirers and of
exceedingly self-denying and unselfish friends. I believe that
he has more friends than any other man in the Republican
party ; but he also has very bitter enemies — enemies with
influence. Taking this into consideration, and believing
that the success of the party was more important than the
success of any individual, I was in favor of nominating
some man who would poll the entire Republican vote. This
feeling did not grow out of any hostility to any man, but
simply out of a desire for Republican success. In other
words, I endeavored to take an unprejudiced view of the
situation. Under no circumstances would I underrate the
ability and influence of Mr. Elaine, nor would I endeavor
to depreciate the services he has rendered to the Republican
party and to the country. But by this time it ought to be

INTERVIEWS. 359

understood that I belong to no man, that I am the pro
prietor of myself.

There are two kinds of people that I have no use for —
leaders and followers. The leader should be principle ; the
leader should be a great object to be accomplished. 'The
follower should be the man dedicated to the accomplishment
of a noble end. He who simply follows persons gains no
honor and is incapable of giving honor even to the one he
follows. There are certain things to be accomplished and
these things are the leaders. We want in this country an
American system; we wish to carry into operation, into
practical effect, ideas, policies, theories in harmony with our
surroundings.

This is a great country filled with intelligent, industrious,
restless, ambitious people. Millions came here because
they were dissatisfied with the laws, the institutions, the
tyrannies, the absurdities, the poverty, the wretchedness
and the infamous spirit of caste found in the Old World.
Millions of these people are thinking for themselves, and
only the people who can teach, who can give new facts, who
can illuminate, should be regarded as political benefactors.
This country is, in my judgment, in all that constitutes
true greatness, the nearest civilized of any country. Only
yesterday the German Empire robbed a woman of her
child; this was done as a political necessity. Nothing is
taken into consideration except some move on the political
chess-board. The feelings of a mother are utterly disre
garded ; they are left out of the question ; they are not even
passed upon. They are naturally ignored, because in these
governments only the unnatural is natural.

In our political life we have substantially outgrown the
duel. There are some small, insignificant people who still
think it important to defend a worthless reputation on the
field of "honor," but for respectable members of the Senate,
of the House, of the Cabinet, to settle a political argument

360 INTERVIEWS.

with pistols would render them utterly contemptible in this
country; that is to say, the opinion that governs, that
dominates in this country, holds the duel in abhorrence and
in contempt. What could be more idiotic, absurd, childish,
than the duel between Boulanger and Floquet ? What was
settled? It needed no duel to convince the world that
Floquet is a man of courage. The same may be said of
Boulanger. He has faced death upon many fields. Why,
then,resort to the duel ? If Boulanger's wound proves fatal,
that certainly does not tend to prove that Floquet told the
truth, and if Boulanger recovers, it does not tend to prove
that he did not tell the truth.

Nothing is settled. Two men controlled by vanity, that
individual vanity born of national vanity, try to kill each
other ; the public ready to reward the victor ; the cause of
the quarrel utterly ignored; the hands of the public ready
to applaud the successful swordsman — and yet France is
called a civilized nation. No matter how serious the polit
ical situation may be, no matter if everything depends upon
one man, that man is at the mercy of anyone in opposition
who may see fit to challenge him. The greatest general
at the head of their armies may be forced to fight a duel
with a nobody. Such ideas, such a system, keeps a nation
in peril and makes every cause, to a greater or less extent,
depend upon the sword or the bullet of a criminal. — The Press,

New York, July 16, 1888.

THE MILLS BILL.

Question. What, in your opinion, is the significance of the
vote on the Mills Bill recently passed in the House? In
this I find there were one hundred and sixty-two for it,
and one hundred and forty -nine against it ; of these, two
Republicans voted for, and five Democrats against.

Answer. In the first place. I think it somewhat doubtful
whether the bill could have been passed if Mr. Randall had

INTERVIEWS. 361

been well. His sickness had much to do with this vote.
Had he been present to have taken care of his side, to have
kept his forces in hand, he, in my judgment, taking into
consideration his wonderful knowledge of parliamentary
tactics, would have defeated this bill.

It is somewhat hard to get the average Democrat, in the
absence of his leader, to throw away the prospect of patron
age. Most members of Congress have to pay tolerably
strict attention to their political fences. The President, al
though clinging with great tenacity to the phrase " civil
service," has in all probability pulled every string he could
reach for the purpose of compelling the Democratic mem
bers not only to stand in line, but to answer promptly to
their names. Every Democrat who has shown independ
ence has been stepped on just to the extent he could be
reached ; but many members, had the leader been on the
floor — and a leader like Randall — would have followed
him.

There are very few congressional districts in the United
States not intensely Democratic where the people want
nothing protected. There are a few disticts where nothing
grows except ancient politics, where they cultivate only
the memory of what never ought to have been, where the
subject of protection has not yet reached.

The impudence requisite to pass the Mills Bill is some
thing phenomenal. Think of the Representatives from
Louisiana saying to the ranchmen of the West and to the
farmers of Ohio that wool must be on the free list, but that
for the sake of preserving the sugar interest of Louisiana
and a little portion of Texas, all the rest of the United
States must pay tribute.

Everybody admits that Louisiana is not very well
adapted by nature for raising sugar, for the reason that the
cane has to be planted every year, and every third year
the frost puts in an appearance just a little before the

362 INTERVIEWS.

sugar. Now, while I think personally that the tariff on
sugar has stimulated the inventive genius of the country to
find other ways of producing that which is universally
needed ; and while I believe that it will not be long until
we shall produce every pound of sugar that we consume,
and produce it cheaper than we buy it now, I am satisfied
that in time and at no distant day sugar will be made in
this country extremely cheap, not only from beets, but from
sorghum and corn, and it may be from other prod
ucts. At the same time this is no excuse for Louisiana,
neither is it any excuse for South Carolina asking for a
tariff on rice, and at the same time wishing to leave some
other industry in the United States, in which many more
millions have been invested, absolutely without protec
tion.

Understand, I am not opposed to a reasonable tariff on
rice, provided it is shown that we can raise rice in this
country cheaply and at a profit to such an extent as finally
to become substantially independent of the rest of the
world. What I object to is the impudence of the gentle
man who is raising the rice objecting to the protection of
some other industry of far greater importance than his.

After all, the whole thing must be a compromise. We
must act together for the common good. If we wish to
make something at the expense of another State we must
allow that State to make something at our expense, or at
least we must be able to show that while it is for our bene
fit it is also for the benefit of the country at large. Every
body is entitled to have his own way up to the point that
his way interferes with somebody else. States are like
individuals — their rights are relative — they are subordin
ated to the good of the whole country.

For many j'ears it has been the American policy to do
all that reasonably could be done to foster American in
dustry, to give scope to American ingenuity and a field for

INTERVIEWS. 363

American enterprise — in other words, a future for the
United States.

The Southern States were always in favor of something
like free trade. They wanted to raise cotton for Great
Britain — raw material for other countries. At that time
their labor was slave labor, and they could not hope ever
to have skilled labor, because skilled labor cannot be
enslaved. The Southern people knew at that time that if
a man was taught enough of mathematics to understand
machinery, to run locomotives, to weave cloth ; if he was
taught enough of chemistry even to color calico, it would
be impossible to keep him a slave. Education always was
and always will be an abolitionist. The South advocated
a system of harmony with slavery, in harmony with ig
norance — that is to say, a system of free trade, under which
it might raise raw material. It could not hope to manu
facture, because by making its labor intelligent enough to
manufacture it would lose it.

In the North, men are working for themselves, and as I
have often said, they were getting their hands and heads
in partnership. Every little stream that went singing to
the sea was made to turn a thousand wheels ; the water
became a spinner and a weaver ; the water became a black
smith and ran a trip hammer; the water was doing the
work of millions of men. In other words, the free people
of the North were doing what free people have always
done, going into partnership with the forces of nature.
Free people want good tools, shapely, well made — tools
with which the most work can be done with the least
strain.

Suppose the South had been in favor of protection ;
suppose that all over the Southern country there had been
workshops, factories, machines of every kind ; suppose
that her people had been as ingenious as the people of the
North ; suppose that her hands had been as deft as those

364 INTERVIEWS.

that had been accustomed to skilled labor ; then one of two
things would have happened ; either the South would have
been too intelligent to withdraw from the Union, or, hav
ing withdrawn, it would have had the power to maintain its
position. My opinion is that it would have been too in
telligent to withdraw.

When the South seceded it had no factories. The people
of the South had ability, but it was not trained in the
direction then necessary. They could not arm and equip
their men ; they could not make their clothes ; they could
not provide them with guns, with cannon, with ammuni
tion, and with the countless implements of destruction.
They had not the ingenuity ; they had not the means ;
they could not make cars to carry their troops, or loco
motives to draw them ; they had not in their armies the
men to build bridges or to supply the needed transporta
tion. They had nothing but cotton — that is to say, raw
material. So that you might say that the Rebellion has
settled the question as to whether a country is better off
and more prosperous, and more powerful, and more ready
for war, that is filled with industries, or one that depends
simply upon the production of raw material.

There is another thing in this connection that should
never be forgotten — at least, not until after the election in
November, and then if forgotten, should be remembered at
every subsequent election — and that is, that the Southern
Confederacy had in its Constitution the doctrine of free
trade. Among other things it was fighting for free trade.
As a matter of fact, John C. Calhoun was fighting for free
trade ; the nullification business was in the interest of
free trade.

The Southern people are endeavoring simply to accom
plish, with the aid of New York, what they failed to accom
plish on the field. The South is as "solid" to-day as in 1863.
It is now for free trade, and it purposes to carry the day by

INTERVIEWS. 365

the aid of one or two Northern States. History is repeat
ing itself. It was the same for many years, up to the
election of Abraham Lincoln.

Understand me, I do not blame the South for acting in
accordance with its convictions, but the North ought not
to be misled. The North ought to understand what the
issue is. The South has a different idea of government — it
is afraid of what it calls " centralization" — it is extremely
sensitive about what are called "State Rights" or the sov
ereignty of the State. But the North believes in a Union
that is united. The North does not expect to have any in
terest antagonistic to the Union. The North has no mental
reservation. The North believes in the Government ana '"n
the Federal system, and the North believes that when a State
is admitted into the Union it becomes a part — an integral
part — of the Nation ; that there was a welding, that the State,
so far as sovereignty is concerned, is lost in the Union,
and that the people of that State become citizens of the
whole country.

Question. I see that by the vote two of the five Democrats
who voted for protection, and one of the two Republicans
who voted for free trade, were New Yorkers. What do you
think is the significance of this fact in relation to the ques
tion as to whether New York will join the South in its
opposition to the industries of the country ?

Answer. In the city of New York there are a vast num
ber of men — importers, dealers in foreign articles, represen
tatives of foreign houses, of foreign interests, of foreign
ideas. Of course most of these people are in favor of free
trade. They regard New York as a good market ; beyond
that they have not the slightest interest in the United States.
They are in favor of anything that will give them a larger
profit, or that will allow them to do the same business with
less capital, or that will do them any good without the
slightest regard as to what the effect may be on this country

366 INTERVIEWS.

as a nation. They come from all countries, and they ex
pect to remain here until their fortunes are made or lost,
and all their ideas are moulded by their own interests.
Then, there are a great many natives who are merchants in
New York and who deal in foreign goods, and they prob
ably think — some of them — that it would be to their interest
to have free trade, and they will probably vote according to
the ledger. With them it is question of bookkeeping.
Their greed is too great to appreciate the fact that to im
poverish customers destroys trade.

At the same time, New York, being one of the greatest
manufacturing States of the world, will be for protection,
and the Democrats of New York who voted for protection
did so, not only because they believed in it themselves, but
because their constituents believe in it, and the Republican
who voted the other way must have represented some dis
trict where the foreign influence controls.

The people of this State will protect their own industries.

Question. What will be the fate of the Mills Bill in the
Senate?

Answer. I think that unless the Senate has a bill pre
pared embodying Republican ideas, a committee should be
appointed, not simply to examine the Mills Bill, but to get
the opinions and the ideas of the most intelligent manufac
turers and mechanics in this country. Let the questions be
thoroughly discussed, and let the information thus obtained
be given to the people ; let it be published from day to day ;
let the laboring man have his say, let the manufacturer give
his opinion ; let the representatives of the principal industries
be heard, so that we may vote intelligently, so that the peo
ple may know what they are doing.

A great many industries have been attacked. Let them
defend themselves. Public property should not be taken
for Democratic use without due process of law.

Certainly it is not the business of a Republican Senate to

INTERVIEWS. 367

pull the donkey of the Democrats out of the pit ; they dug
the pit, and we have lost no donkey.

I do not think the Senate called upon to fix up this Mills
Bill, to rectify its most glaring mistakes, and then for the
sake of saving a little, give up a great deal. What we have
got is safe until the Democrats have the power to pass a bill.
We can protect our rights by not passing their bills. In
other words, we do not wish to practice any great self-denial
simply for the purpose of insuring Democratic success. If
the bill is sent back to the House, no matter in what form,
if it still has the name " Mills Bill" I think the Democrats
will vote for it simply to get out of their trouble. They
will have the President's message left.

But I do hope that the Senate will investigate this busi
ness. It is hardly fair to ask the Senate to take decided and
final action upon this bill in the last days of the session.
There is no time to consider it unless it is instantly defeated.
This would probably be a safe course, and yet, by accident,
there may be some good things in this bill that ought to be
preserved, and certainly the Democratic party ought to re
gard it as a compliment to keep it long enough to read it.

The interests involved are great — there are the commer
cial and industrial interests of sixty millions of people.
These questions touch the prosperity of the Republic.
Every person under the flag has a direct interest in the solu
tion of these questions. The end that is now arrived at, the
policy now adopted, may and probably will last for many
years. One can hardly overestimate the immensity of the
interests at stake. A man dealing with his own affairs
should take time to consider ; he should give himself the
benefit of his best judgment. When acting for others he
should do no less. The Senators represent, or should repre
sent, not only their own views, not only their own interests,
but above these things they represent the material interests
of their constituents, of their States, and to this trust they

368 INTERVIEWS.

•must be true, and in order to be true, they must understand
the material interests of their States, and in order to be faith
ful, they must understand how the proposed changes in the
tariff will affect these interests. This cannot be done in a
moment.

In my judgment, the best way is for the Senate, through
the proper committee, to hear testimony, to hear the views
of intelligent men, of interested men, of prejudiced men —
that is to say, they should look at the question from all sides.

Question. The Senate is almost tied ; do you think that
any Republicans are likely to vote in the interest of the
President's policy at this session ?

Answer. Of course I cannot pretend to answer that ques
tion from any special knowledge, or on any information
that others are not in possession of. My idea is simply this :
That a majority of the Senators are opposed to the Presi
dent's policy. A majority of the Senate will, in my judg
ment, sustain the Republican policy ; that is to say, they will
stand by the American system. A majority of the Senate,
I think, know that it will be impossible for us to compete in
the markets of the world with those nations in which labor
is far cheaper than it is in the United States, and that when
you make raw material just the same, you have not over
come the difference in labor, and until this is overcome we
cannot successfully compete in the markets of the world
with those countries where labor is cheaper. And there are
only two ways to overcome this difficulty — either the price
of labor must go up in the other countries or must go down
in this. I do not believe that a majority of the Senate can
be induced to vote for a policy that will decrease the wages
of American workingmen.

There is this curious thing: The President started out
blowing the trumpet of free trade. It gave, as the Demo
crats used to say, "no uncertain sound." He blew with all
his might. Messrs. Morrison, Carlisle, Mills and many

INTERVIEWS. 369

others joined the band. When the Mills Bill was introduced
it was heralded as the legitimate offspring of the President's
message. When the Democratic convention at St. Louis
met, the declaration was made that the President's message,
the Mills Bill, the Democratic platform of 1884 and the
Democratic platform of 1888, were all the same — all segments
of one circle ; in fact, they were like modern locomotives —
"all the parts interchangeable." As soon as the Republi
can convention met, made its platform and named its can
didates, it is not free trade, but freer trade ; and now Mr.
Mills, in the last speech that he was permitted to make in
favor of his bill, endeavored to show that it was a high pro
tective tariff measure.

This is what lawyers call " a departure in pleading."
That is to say, it is a case that ought to be beaten on de
murrer. — New York Press, July 29, 1888.

SOCIETY AND ITS CRIMINALS.*

I suppose that society — that is to say, a state or a nation
— has the right of self-defence. It is impossible to main
tain society — that is to say, to protect the rights of
individuals in life, in property, in reputation, and in the
various pursuits known as trades and professions, without
in some way taking care of those who violate these rights.
The principal object of all government should be to protect
those in the right from those in the wrong. There are a
vast number of people who need to be protected who are
unable, by reason of the defects in their minds and by the
countless circumstances that enter into the question of
making a living, to protect themselves. Among the bar
barians there was, comparatively speaking, but little differ
ence. A living was made by fishing and hunting. These

* Col. Robert G. In^ersoll was greatly interested in securing for Chiara Cignarale a
commutation of the death sentence to Imprisonment for life. In view of the fact that
the great Agnostic has made a close study of capital punishment, a reporter for the
World called upon him a day or two aero for an interview touching modern reformatory
measures and the punishment of criminals. Speaking generally on the subject Colonel
Ingeraoll said ;

37° INTERVIEWS.

arts were simple and were easily learned. The principal
difference in barbarians consisted in physical strength and
courage. As a consequence, there were comparatively few
failures. Most men were on an equality. Now that we are
somewhat civilized, life has become wonderfully complex.
There are hundreds of arts, trades, and professions, and in
every one of these there is great competition.

Besides all this, something is needed every moment.
Civilized man has less credit than the barbarian. There is
something by which everything can be paid for, including
the smallest services. Everybody demands payment, and
he who fails to pay is a failure. Owing to the competition,
owing to the complexity of modern life, owing to the
thousand things that must be known in order to succeed in
any direction, on either side of the great highway that is
called Progress, are innumerable wrecks. As a rule, failure
in some honest direction, or at least in some useful employ
ment, is the dawn of crime. People who are prosperous,
people who by reasonable labor can make a reasonable
living, who, having a little leisure can lay in a little for the
winter that comes to all, are honest.

As a rule, reasonable prosperity is virtuous. I don't say
great prosperity, because it is very hard for the average
man to withstand extremes. When people fail under this
law, or rather this fact, of the survival of the fittest, they
endeavor to do by some illegal way that which they failed
to do in accordance with law. Persons driven from the
highway take to the fields, and endeavor to reach their end
or object in some shorter way, by some quicker path, regard
less of its being right or wrong.

I have said this much to show that I regard criminals as
unfortunates. Most people regard those who violate the
law with hatred. They do not take into consideration the
circumstances. They do not believe that man is perpetually
acted upon. They throw out of consideration the effect of

INTERVIEWS. 371

poverty, of necessity, and above all, of opportunity. For
these reasons they regard criminals with feelings of revenge.
They wish to see them punished. They want them
imprisoned or hanged. They do not think the law has been
vindicated unless somebody has been outraged. I look at
these things from an entirely different point of view. I
regard these people who are in the clutches of the law not
only as unfortunates, but, for the most part, as victims.
You may call them victims of nature, or of nations, or of
governments; it makes no difference, they are victims.
Under the same circumstances the very persons who punish
them would be punished. But whether the criminal is a
victim or not, the honest man, the industrious man, has the
right to defend the product of his labor. He who sows and
plows should be allowed to reap, and he who endeavors to
take from him his harvest is what we call a criminal ; and
it is the business of society to protect the honest from the
dishonest.

Without taking into account whether the man is or is not
responsible, still society has the right of self-defence.
Whether that right of self-defence goes to the extent of
taking life, depends, I imagine, upon the circumstances in
which society finds itself placed. A thousand men on a
ship form a society. If a few men should enter into a plot
for the destruction of the ship, or for turning it over to
pirates, or for poisoning and plundering the most of the
passengers — if the passengers found this out certainly they
would have the right of self-defence. They might not have
the means to confine the conspirators with safety. Under
such circumstances it might be perfectly proper for them to
destroy their lives and to throw their worthless bodies into
the sea. But what society has the right to do depends
upon the circumstances. Now, in my judgment, society has
the right to do two things — to protect itself and to do what
it can to reform the criminal. Society has no right to take

372 INTERVIEWS.

revenge ; no right to torture a convict ; no right to do
wrong because some individual has done wrong. I am
opposed to all corporal punishment in penitentiaries. I am
opposed to anything that degrades a criminal or leaves upon
him an unnecessary stain, or puts upon him any stain that
he did not put upon himself.

Most people defend capital punishment on the ground
that the man ought to be killed because he has killed
another. The only real ground for killing him, even if that
be good, is not that he has killed, but that he may kill.
What he has done simply gives evidence of what he may do,
and to prevent what he may do, instead of to revenge what
he has done, should be the reason given.

Now, there is another view. To what extent does it
harden the community for the Government to take life?
Don't people reason in this way : that man ought to be killed ;
the Government, under the same circumstances, would kill
him, therefore I will kill him ? Does not the Government
feed the mob spirit — the lynch spirit ? Does not the mob
follow the example set by the Government ? The Govern
ment certainly cannot say that it hangs a man for the
purpose of reforming him. Its feelings toward that man
are only feelings of revenge and hatred. These are the
same feelings that animate the lowest and basest mob.

Let me give you an example. In the city of Bloomington,
in the State of Illinois, a man confined in the jail, in his
efforts to escape, shot and, I believe, killed the jailer. He
was pursued, recaptured, brought back and hanged by a
mob. The man who put the rope around his neck was then
under indictment for an assault to kill and was out on bail,
and after the poor wretch was hanged another man climbed
the tree and, in a kind of derision, put a piece of cigar
between the lips of the dead man. The man who did this
had also been indicted for a penitentiary offence and was
then out on bail.

INTERVIEWS. 373

I mention this simply to show the kind of people you find
in mobs. Now, if the Government had a greater and nobler
thought ; if the Government said : " We will reform ; we will
not destroy; but if the man is beyond reformation we will
simply put him where he can do no more harm," then, in my
judgment, the effect would be far better. My own opinion
is, that the effect of an execution is bad upon the com
munity — degrading and debasing. The effect is to cheapen
human life ; and, although a man is hanged because he has
taken human life, the very fact that his life is taken by the
Government tends to do away with the idea that human life
is sacred.

Let me give you an illustration. A man in the city of
Washington went to Alexandria, Va., for the purpose of
seeing a man hanged who had murdered an old man and a
woman for the purpose of getting their money. On his
return from that execution he came through what is called
the Smithsonian grounds. This was on the same day, late
in the evening. There he met a peddler, whom he proceeded
to murder for his money. He was arrested in a few hours,
in a little while was tried and convicted, and in a little
while was hanged. And another man, present at this
second execution, went home on that same day, and, in
passing by a butcher-shop near his house, went in, took
from the shop a cleaver, went into his house and chopped
his wife's head off.

This, I say, throws a little light upon the effect of public
executions. In the Cignarale case, of course the sentence
should have been commuted. I think, however, that she
ought not to be imprisoned for life. From what I read of
the testimony I think she should have been pardoned.

It is hard, I suppose, for a man fully to understand and
enter into the feelings of a wife who has been trampled
upon, abused, bruised, and blackened by the man she
loved — by the man who made to her the vows of eter-

374 INTERVIEWS.

nal affection. The woman, as a rule, is so weak, so help
less. Of course, it does not all happen in a moment. It
comes on as the night comes. She notices that he does not
act quite as affectionately as he formerly did. Day after
day, month after month, she feels that she is entering a
twilight. But she hopes that she is mistaken, and that the
light will come again. The gloom deepens, and at last she
is in midnight — a midnight without a star. And this man,
whom she once worshiped, is now her enemy — one who de
lights to trample upon every sentiment she has — who delights
in humiliating her, and who is guilty of a thousand nameless
tyrannies. Under these circumstances, it is hardly right
to hold that woman accountable for what she does. It has
always seemed to me strange that a woman so circum
stanced — in such fear that she dare not even tell her
trouble — in such fear that she dare not even run away —
dare not tell a father or a mother, for fear that she will be
killed — I say, that in view of all this, it has always seemed
strange to me that so few husbands have been poisoned.

The probability is that society raises its own criminals.
It plows the land, sows the seed, and harvests the crop. I
believe that the shadow of the gibbet will not always fall
upon the earth. I believe the time will come when we
shall know too much to raise criminals — know too much to
crowd those that labor into the dens and dungeons that we
call tenements, while the idle live in palaces. The time
will come when men will know that real progress means
the enfranchisement of the whole human race, and that our
interests are so united, so interwoven, that the few cannot
be happy while the many suffer ; so that the many cannot
be happy while the few suffer ; so that none can be happy
while one suffers. In other words, it will be found that
the human race is interested in each individual. When
that time comes we will stop producing criminals ; we will
stop producing failures ; we will not leave the next gener-

INTERVIEWS. 375

ation to chance ; we will not regard the gutter as a proper
nursery for posterity.

People imagine that if the thieves are sent to the peniten
tiary, that is the last of the thieves ; that if those who kill
others are hanged, society is on a safe and enduring basis.
But the trouble is here : A man comes to your front door
ahd you drive him away. You have an idea that that man's
case is settled. You are mistaken. He goes to the back
door. He is again driven away. But the case is not yet
settled. The next thing you know he enters at night. He
is a burglar. He is caught ; he is convicted ; he is sent to
the penitentiary, and you imagine that the case is settled.
But it is not. You must remember that you have to keep
all the agencies alive for the purpose of taking care of
these people. You have to build and maintain your
penitentiaries, your courts of justice; you have to pay
your judges, your district attorneys, your juries, your
witnesses, your detectives, your police — all these people
must be paid. So that, after all, it is a very expensive
way of settling this question. You could have done it far
more cheaply had you found this burglar when he was a
child ; had you taken his father and mother from the tene
ment house, or had you compelled the owners to keep the
tenement clean ; or if you had widened the streets, if you
had planted a few trees, if you had had plenty of baths,
if you had had a school in the neighborhood. If you had
taken some interest in this family — some interest in this
child — instead of breaking into houses, he might have been
a builder of houses.

There is, and it cannot be said too often, no reforming
influence in punishment ; no reforming power in revenge.
Only the best of men should be in charge of penitentiaries ;
only the noblest minds and the tenderest hearts should
have the care of criminals. Criminals should see from the
first moment that they enter a penitentiary that it is filled

376 INTERVIEWS.

with the air of kindness, full of the light of hope. The object
should be to convince every criminal that he has made a
mistake ; that he has taken the wrong way ; that the right
way is the easy way, and that the path of crime never did
and never can lead to happiness ; that that idea is a mis
take, and that the Government wishes to convince him that
he has made a mistake ; wishes to open his intellectual
eyes ; wishes so to educate him, so to elevate him, that he
will look back upon what he has done, only with horror.
This is reformation. Punishment is not. When the con
vict is taken to Sing Sing or to Auburn, and when a striped
suit of clothes is put upon him — that is to say, when he is
made to feel the degradation of his position — no step has
been taken toward reformation. You have simply filled
his heart with hatred. Then, when he has been abused
for several years, treated like a wild beast, and finally
turned out again in the community, he has no thought, in
a majority of cases, except to " get even " with those who
have persecuted him. He feels that it is a persecution.

Question. Do you think that men are naturally crim
inals and naturally virtuous?

Answer. I think that man does all that he does naturally
— that is to say, a certain man does a certain act under cer
tain circumstances, and he does this naturally. For in
stance, a man sees a five dollar bill, and he knows that he
can take it without being seen. Five dollars is no tempta
tion to him. Under the circumstances it is not natural that
he should take it. The same man sees five million dollars,
and feels that he can get possession of it without detection.
If he takes it, then under the circumstances, that was
natural to him. And yet I believe there are men above
all price, and that no amount of temptation or glory or
fame could mislead them. Still, whatever man does, is or
was natural to him.

Another view of the subject is this : I have read that out

INTERVIEWS. 377

of fifty criminals who had been executed it was found, I
believe, in nearly all the cases, that the shape of the skull
was abnormal. Whether this is true or not, I don't know ;
but that some men have a tendency toward what we call
crime, I believe. Where this has been ascertained, then,
it seems to me, such men should be placed where they
cannot multiply their kind. Women who have a crim
inal tendency should be placed where they cannot in
crease their kind. For hardened criminals — that is
to say, for the people who make crime a business — it
would probably be better to separate the sexes ; to send
the men to one island, the women to another. Let them
be kept apart, to the end that people with criminal tend
encies may fade from the earth. This is not prompted
by revenge. This would not be done for the purpose of
punishing these people, but for the protection of society —
for the peace and happiness of the future.

My own belief is that the system in vogue now in regard
to the treatment of criminals in many States produces more
crime than it prevents. Take, for instance, the Southern
States. There is hardly a chapter in the history of the
world the reading of which could produce greater indigna
tion than the history of the convict system in many of the
Southern States. These convicts are hired out for the pur
pose of building railways, or plowing fields, or digging
coal, and in some instances the death-rate has been over
twelve per cent, a month. The evidence shows that no re
spect was paid to the sexes — men and women were chained
together indiscriminately. The evidence also shows that
for the slightest offences they were shot down like beasts.
They were pursued by hounds, and their flesh was torn
from their bones.

So in some of the Northern prisons they have what they
call the weighing machine — an infamous thing, and he who
uses it commits as great a crime as the convict he punishes

INTERVIEWS.

could have committed. All these things are degrading, de
basing, and demoralizing. There is no need of any such
punishment in any penitentiary. Let the punishment be
of such kind that the convict is responsible himself. For
instance, if the convict refuses to obey a reasonable rule he
can be put into a cell. He can be fed when he obeys the
rule.

If he goes hungry it is his own fault. It depends
upon himself to say when he shall eat. Or he may be
placed in such a position that if he does not work — if he
does not pump — the water will rise and drown him. If the
water does rise it is his fault. Nobody pours it upon him.
He takes his choice.

These are suggested as desperate cases, but I can imagine
no case where what is called corporal punishment should be
inflicted, and the reason I am against it is this: I am
opposed to any punishment that cannot be inflicted by a
gentleman. I am opposed to any punishment the infliction
of which tends to harden and debase the man who inflicts
it. I am for no laws that have to be carried out by human
curs.

Take, for instance, the whipping-post. Nothing can be
more degrading. The man who applies the lash is neces
sarily a cruel and vulgar man, and the oftener he applies it
the more and more debased he will become. The whole
thing can be stated in the one sentence: I am opposed to
any punishment that cannot be inflicted by a gentleman, and
by "gentleman" I mean a self-respecting, honest, generous
man.

Question. What do you think of the efficacy or the pro
priety of punishing criminals by solitary confinement?

Answer. Solitary confinement is a species of torture. I
am opposed to all torture. I think the criminal should not
be punished. He should be reformed, if he is capable of
reformation. But, whatever is done, it should not be done

INTERVIEWS. 379

as a punishment. Society should be too noble, too gener
ous, to harbor a thought of revenge. Society should not
punish, it should protect itself only. It should endeavor to
reform the individual. Now, solitary confinement does not,
I imagine, tend to the reformation of the individual.
Neither can the person in that position do good to any
human being. The prisoner will be altogether happier
when his mind is engaged, when his hands are busy, when
he has something to do. This keeps alive what we call
cheerfulness. And let me say a word on this point.

I don't believe the State ought to steal the labor of a con
vict. Here is a man who has a family. He is sent to the
penitentiary. He works from morning till night. Now, in
my judgment, he ought to be paid for that labor over and
above what it costs to keep him. That money should be
sent to his family. That money should be subject, at least,
to his direction. If he is a single man, when he comes out
of the penitentiary he should be given his earnings, and all
his earnings, so that he would not have the feeling that he
had been robbed. A statement should be given to him to
show what it had cost to keep him and how much his labor
had brought and the balance remaining in his favor. With
this little balance he could go out into the world with some
thing like independence. This little balance would be a
foundation for his honesty — a foundation for a resolution
on his part to be a man. But now each one goes out with
the feeling that he has not only been punished for the crime
which he committed, but that he has been robbed of the re
sults of his labor while there.

The idea is simply preposterous that the people sent to
the penitentiary should live in idleness. They should have
the benefit of their labor, and if you give them the benefit of
their labor they will turn out as good work as if they
were out of the penitentiary. They will have the same
reason to do their best. Consequently, poor articles, poorly

380 INTERVIEWS.

constructed things, would not come into competition with
good articles made by free people outside of the walls.

Now many mechanics are complaining because work done
in the penitentiaries is brought into competition with their
work. But the only reason that convict work is cheaper is
because the poor wretch who does it is robbed. The only
reason that the work is poor is because the man who does
it has no interest in its being good. If he had the profit of
his own labor he would do the best that was in him, and the
consequence would be that the wares manufactured in the
prisons would be as good as those manufactured elsewhere.
For instance, we will say here are three or four men work
ing together. They are all free men. One commits a crime
and he is sent to the penitentiary. Is it possible that his
companions would object to his being paid for honest work
in the penitentiary?

And let me say right here, all labor is honest. Whoever
makes a useful thing, the labor is honest, no matter whether
the work is done in a penitentiary or in a palace ; in a hovel
or the open field. Wherever work is done for the good of
others, it is honest work. If the laboring men would stop
and think, they would know that they support everybody.
Labor pays all the taxes. Labor supports all the peniten
tiaries. Labor pays the warden. Labor pays everything,
and if the convicts are allowed to live in idleness labor must
pay their board. Every cent of tax is borne by the back of
labor. No matter whether your tariff is put on champagne
and diamonds, it has to be paid by the men and women who
work — those who plow in the fields, who wash and iron,
who stand by the forge, who run the cars and work in the
mines, and by those who battle with the waves of the sea.
Labor pays every bill.

There is one little thing to which I wish to call the at
tention of all who happen to read this interview, and that is
this : Undoubtedly you think of all criminals with horror

INTERVIEWS. 381

and when you hear about them you are, in all probability,
filled with virtuous indignation. But, first of all, I want
you to think of what you have in fact done. Secondly, I
want you to think of what you have wanted to do. Thirdly,
I want you to reflect whether you were prevented from
doing what you wanted to do by fear or by lack of oppor
tunity. Then perhaps you will have more charity.

Question. What do you think of the new legislation in the
State changing the death penalty to death by electricity?

Answer. If death by electricity is less painful than
hanging, then the law, so far as that goes, is good. There is
not the slightest propriety in inflicting upon the person
executed one single unnecessary pang, because that par
takes of the nature of revenge — that is to say, of hatred —
and, as a consequence, the State shows the same spirit that
the criminal was animated by when he took the life of his
neighbor. If the death penalty is to be inflicted, let it be
done in the most humane way. For my part, I should like
to see the criminal removed, if he must be removed, with
the same care and with the same mercy that you would
perform a surgical operation. Why inflict pain ? Who
wants it inflicted ? What good can it, by any possibility,
do? To inflict unnecessary pain hardens him who inflicts
it, hardens each among those who witness it, and tends to
demoralize the community.

Question. Is it not the fact that punishments have grown
less and less severe for many years past ?

Answer. In the old times punishment was the only
means of reformation. If anybody did wrong, punish him.
If people still continued to commit the same offence, in
crease the punishment ; and that went on until in what
they call "civilized countries" they hanged people, provided
they stole the value of one shilling. But larceny kept
right on. There was no diminution. So, for treason, bar
barous punishments were inflicted. Those guilty of that

382 INTERVIEWS.

offence were torn asunder by horses ; their entrails were
cut out of them while they were yet living and thrown into
their faces ; their bodies were quartered and their heads
were set on pikes above the gates of the city. Yet there
was a hundred times more treason then than now. Every -
time a man was executed and mutilated and tortured in this
way the seeds of other treasons were sown.

So in the church there was the same idea. No reforma
tion but by punishment. Of course in this world the pun
ishment stopped when the poor wretch was dead. It was
found that that punishment did not reform, so the church
said: "After death it will go right on, getting worse and
worse, forever and forever." Finally it was found that this
did not tend to the reformation of mankind. Slowly the
fires of hell have been dying out. The climate has been
changing from year to year. Men have lost confidence in
the power of the thumbscrew, the fagot, and the rack here,
and they are losing confidence in the flames of perdition
hereafter. In other words, it is simply a question of
civilization.

When men become civilized in matters of thought, they
will know that every human being has the right to think
for himself, and the right to express his honest thoughts.
Then the world of thought will be free. At that time they
will be intelligent enough to know that men have different
thoughts, that their ways are not alike, because they
have lived under different circumstances, and in that time
they will also know that men act as they are acted upon.
And it is my belief that the time will come when men will
no more think of punishing a man because he has com
mitted the crime of larceny than they will think of punish
ing a man because he has the consumption. In the first
case they will endeavor to reform him, and in the second
case they will endeavor to cure him.

The intelligent people of the world, many of them, are

INTERVIEWS. 383

endeavoring to find out the great facts in Nature that con
trol the dispositions of men. So other intelligent people
are endeavoring to ascertain the facts and conditions that
govern what we call health, and what we call disease, and
the object of these people is finally to produce a race with
out disease of flesh and without disease of mind. These
people look forward to the time when there need be neither
hospitals nor penitentiaries. — New York World, August 5, isss.

WOMAN'S RIGHT TO DIVORCE.

Question. Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, the great Agnostic, has
always been an ardent defender of the sanctity of the home
and of the marriage relation. Apropos of the horrible
account of a man's tearing out the eyes of his wife at Far
Rockaway last week, Colonel Ingersoll was asked what
recourse a woman had under such circumstances ?

Answer. I read the account, and I don't remember of ever
having read anything more perfectly horrible and cruel. It
is impossible for ine to imagine such a monster, or to account
for such an inhuman human being. How a man could
deprive a human being of sight, except where some religious
question is involved, is beyond my comprehension. We
know that for many centuries frightful punishments were
inflicted, and inflicted by the pious, by the theologians, by
the spiritual minded, and by those who " loved their
neighbors as themselves." We read the accounts of how
the lids of men's eyes were cut off and then the poor victims
tied where the sun would shine upon their lidless orbs ; of
others who were buried alive ; of others staked out on the
sands of the sea, to be drowned by the rising tide; of
others put in sacks filled with snakes. Yet these things
appeared far away, and we flattered ourselves that, to a great
degree, the world had outgrown these atrocities ; and now,
heie, near the close of the nineteenth century, we find a man
— a husband — cruel enough to put out the eyes of the

384 INTERVIEWS.

woman he swore to love, protect and cherish. This man
has probably been taught that there is forgiveness for every
crime, and now imagines that when he repents there will be
more joy in heaven over him than over ninety and nine
good and loving husbands who have treated their wives in
the best possible manner, and who, instead of tearing out
their eyes, have filled their lives with content and covered
their faces with kisses.

Question. You told me, last week, in a general way, what
society should do with the husband in such a case as that.
I would like to ask you to-day, what you think society
ought to do with the wife in such a case, or what ought
the wife to be permitted to do for herself ?

Answer. When we take into consideration the crime of
the man who blinded his wife, it is impossible not to think
of the right of divorce. Many people insist that marriage
is an indissoluble tie ; that nothing can break it, and that
nothing can release either party from the bond. Now, take
this ease at Far Rockaway. One year ago the husband tore
out one of his wife's eyes. Had she then good cause for
divorce ? Is it possible that an infinitely wise and good God
would insist on this poor, helpless woman remaining with
the wild beast, her husband ? Can anyone imagine that such
a course would add to the joy of Paradise, or even tend to
keep one harp in tune ? Can the good of society require the
woman to remain ? She did remain, and the result is that
the other eye has been torn from its socket by the hands of
the husband. Is she entitled to a divorce now ? And if she
is granted one, is virtue in danger, and shall we lose the
high ideal of home life? Can anything be more infamous
than to endeavor to make a woman, under such circum
stances, remain with such a man ? It may be said that she
should leave him — that they should live separate and apart.
That is to say, that this woman should be deprived of a
home ; that she should not be entitled to the love of man ;

INTERVIEWS. 385

that she should remain, for the rest of her days, worse than
a widow. That is to say, a wife, hiding, keeping out of the
way, secreting herself from the hyena to whom she was
married. Nothing, in my judgment, can exceed the heart-
lessness of a law or of a creed that would compel this
woman to remain the wife of this monster. And it is no'
only cruel, but it is immoral, low, vulgar.

The ground has been taken that woman would lose her
dignity if marriages were dissoluble. Is it necessary to lose
your freedom in order to retain your character, in order to
be womanly or manly ? Must a woman in order to retain
her womanhood become a slave, a serf, with a wild beast for
a master, or with society for a master, or with a phantom
for a master ? Has not the married woman the right of self-
defence ? Is it not the duty of society to protect her from
her husband ? If she owes no duty to her husband ; if it is
impossible for her to feel towardhimany thrill of affection,
what is there of marriage left? What part of the contract
remains in force? She is not to live with him, because she
abhors him. She is not to remain in the same house with
him, for fear he may kill her. What, then, are their rela
tions ? Do they sustain any relation except that of hunter
and hunted — that is, of tyrant and victim ? And is it desir
able that this relation should be rendered sacred by a
a church ? Is it desirable to have families raised under such
circumstances ? Are we really in need of the children born
of such parents ? If the woman is not in fault, does society
insist that her life should be wrecked ? Can the virtue of
others be preserved only by the destruction of her happi
ness, and by what might be called her perpetual imprison
ment ? I hope the clergy who believe in the sacredness of
marriage — in the indissolubility of the marriage tie — will
give their opinions on this case. I believe that marriage is
the most important contract that human beings can make. I
always believe that a man will keep his contract ; that a

386 INTERVIEWS.

woman, in the highest sense, will keep hers. But suppose
the man does not. Is the woman still bound ?

Is there no mutuality ? What is a contract ? It is where
one party promises to do something in consideration that
the other party will do something. That is to say, there is
a consideration on both sides, moving from one to the other.
A contract without consideration is null and void ; and a con
tract duly entered into, where the consideration of one party
is withheld, is voidable, and can be voided by the party
who has kept, or who is willing to keep, the contract. A
marriage without love is bad enough. But what can we
say of a marriage where the parties hate each other ? Is
there any morality in this — any virtue? Will any decent
person say that a woman, true, good and loving, should be
compelled to live with a man she detests, compelled to be
the mother of his children ? Is there a woman in the world
who would not shrink from this herself ? And is there a
woman so heartless and so immoral that she would force
another to bear what she would shudderingly avoid ? Let us
bring these questions home. In other words, let us have
some sense, some feeling, some heart — and just a little
brain. Marriages are made by men and women. They are
not made by the State, and they are not made by the
gods. By this time people should learn that human
happiness is the foundation of virtue — the foundation of
morality. Nothing is moral that does not tend to the well-
being of sentient beings. Nothing is virtuous the result of
which is not a human good. The world has always been
living for phantoms, for ghosts, for monsters begotten by
ignorance and fear. The world should learn to live for
itself. Man should, by this time, be convinced that all the
reasons for doing right, and all the reasons for doing
wrong, are right here in this world — all within the horizon
of this life. And besides, we should have imagination to
put ourselves in the place of another. Let a man suppose

INTERVIEWS. 387

himself a helpless wife, beaten by a brute who believes in
the indissolubility of marriage. Would he want a divorce ?

I suppose that very few people have any adequate idea
of the sufferings of women and children ; of the number of
wives who tremble when they hear the footsteps of a
returning husband ; of the number of children who hide
when they hear the voice of a father. Very few people
know the number of blows that fall on the flesh of the help
less every day. Few know the nights of terror passed by
mothers holding young children at their breasts. Compared
with this, the hardships of poverty, borne by those who love
each other, are nothing. Men and women, truly married,
bear the sufferings of poverty. They console each other ;
their affection gives to the heart of each perpetual sunshine.
But think of the others ! I have said a thousand times that
the home is the unit of good government. When we have
kind fathers and loving mothers, then we shall have civilized
nations, and not until then. Civilization commences at the
hearthstone. When intelligence rocks the cradle — when
the house is filled with philosophy and kindness — you will
see a world at peace. Justice will sit in the courts, wisdom
in the legislative halls, and over all, like the dome of heaven,
will be the spirit of Liberty !

Question. What is your idea with regard to divorce ?

Answer. My idea is this: As I said before, marriage is
the most sacred contract — the most important contract — that
human beings can make. As a rule, the woman dowers the
husband with her youth — with all she has. From this con
tract the husband should never be released unless the wife
has broken a condition ; that is to say, has failed to fulfill
the contract of marriage. On the other hand, the woman
should be allowed a divorce for the asking. This should
be granted in public, precisely as the marriage should be
in public. Every marriage should be known. There should
be witnesses, to the end that the character of the contract

388 INTERVIEWS.

entered into should be understood; and as all marriage
records should be kept, so the divorce should be open, pub
lic and known. The property should be divided by a court
of equity, under certain regulations of law. tf there are
children, they should be provided for through the property
and the parents. People should understand that men and
women are not virtuous by law. They should comprehend
the fact that law does not create virtue — that law is not the
foundation, the fountain, of love. They should understand
that love is in the human heart, and that real love is virtu
ous. People who love each other will be true to each other.
The death of love is the commencement of vice. Besides
this, there is a public opinion that has great weight. When
that public opinion is right, it does a vast amount of good,
and when wrong, a great amount of harm. People marry,
or should marry, because it increases the happiness of each
and all. But where the marriage turns out to have been a
mistake, and where the result is misery, and not happiness,
the quicker they are divorced the better, not only for them
selves, but for the community at large. These arguments
are generall)7' answered by some donkey braying about free
love, and by "free love" he means a condition of society in
which there is no love. The persons who make this cry are,
in all probability, incapable of the sentiment, of the feeling,
known as love. They judge others by themselves, and they
imagine that without law there would be no restraint.

What do they say of natural modesty? Do they forget
that people have a choice? Do they not understand some
thing of the human heart, and that true love has always
been as pure as the morning star? Do they believe that by
forcing people to remain together who despise each other,
they are adding to the purity of the marriage relation? Do
they not know that all marriage is an outward act, testifying
to that which has happened in the heart ? Still, I always
believe that words are wasted on such people. It is useless

INTERVIEWS. 389

to talk to anybody about music who is unable to distinguish
one tune from another. It is useless to argue with a man
who regards his wife as his property, and it is hardly worth
while to suggest anything to a gentleman who imagines that
society is so constructed that it really requires, for the pro
tection of itself, that the lives of good and noble women
should be wrecked. I am a believer in the virtue of woman,
in the honesty of man. The average woman is virtuous;
the average man is honest, and the history of the world
shows it. If it were not so, society would be impossible. I
don't mean by this that most men are perfect, but what I
mean is this : That there is far more good than evil in the
average human being, and that the natural tendency of most
people is toward the good and toward the right. And I
most passionately deny that the good of society demands
that any good person should suffer. I do not regard gov
ernment as a Juggernaut, the wheels of which must, of ne
cessity, roll over and crush the virtuous, the self-denying and
the good. My doctrine is the exact opposite of what is
known as free love. I believe in the marriage of true
minds and of true hearts. But I believe that thousands of
people are married who do not love each other. That is the
misfortune of our century. Other things are taken into
consideration — position, wealth, title and the thousand
things that have nothing to do with real affection. Where
men and women truly love each other, that love, in my judg
ment, lasts as long as life. The greatest line that I know
of in the poetry of the world is in the 1 1 6th sonnet of Shakes
peare: "Love is not love which alters when it alteration
finds."

Question. Why do you make such a distinction between
the rights of man and the rights of woman ?

Answer. The woman has, as her capital, her youth, her
beauty. We will say that she is married at twenty or twenty-
five. In a few years she has lost her beauty. During these

390 INTERVIEWS.

years the man, so far as capacity to make money is con
cerned — to do something — has grown better and better.
That is to say, his chances have improved ; hers have di
minished. She has dowered him with the Spring of her
life, and as her life advances her chances decrease. Con
sequently, I would give her the advantage, and I would not
compel her to remain with him against her will. It seems
to me far worse to be a wife upon compulsion than to be a
husband upon compulsion. Besides this, I have a feeling
of infinite tenderness toward mothers. The woman that
bears children certainly should not be compelled to live
with a man whom she despises. The suffering is enough
when the father of the child is to her the one man of all this
world. Many people who have a mechanical apparatus in
their breasts that assists in the circulation of what they call
blood, regard these views as sentimental. But when we
take sentiment out of the world nothing is left worth living
for, and when you get sentiment out of the heart it is noth
ing more or less than a pump, an old piece of rubber that
has acquired the habit of contracting and dilating. But I
have this consolation : The people that do not agree with
me are those that do not understand me. — New York World, isss.

SECULARISM.

Question. Colonel, what is your opinion of Secularism ?
Do you regard it as a religion ?

Answer. I understand that the word Secularism em
braces everything that is of any real interest or value to
the human race. I take it for granted that everybody will
admit that well-being is the only good ; that is to say, that
it is impossible to conceive of anything of real value that
does not tend either to preserve or to increase the happi
ness of some sentient being. Secularism, therefore, covers
the entire territory. It fills the circumference of human
knowledge and of human effort. It is, you may say, the

INTERVIEWS. 391

religion of this world ; but if there is another world, it is
necessarily the religion of that, as well.

Man finds himself in this world naked and hungry. He
needs food, raiment, shelter. He finds himself filled with
almost innumerable wants. To gratify these wants is the
principal business of life. To gratify them without inter
fering with other people is the course pursued by all honest
men.

Secularism teaches us to be good here and now. I know
nothing better than goodness. Secularism teaches us to be
just here and now. It is impossible to be juster than
just.

Man can be as just in this world as in any other, and
justice must be the same in all worlds. Secularism
teaches a man to be generous, and generosity is certainly
as good here as it can be anywhere else. Secularism
teaches a man to be charitable, and certainly charity is
as beautiful in this world and in this short life as it could
be were man immortal.

But orthodox people insist that there is something higher
than Secularism ; but, as a matter of fact, the mind of man
can conceive of nothing better, nothing higher, nothing
more spiritual, than goodness, justice, generosity, charity.
Neither has the mind of man been capable of finding a
nobler incentive to action than human love. Secularism
has to do with every possible relation. It says to
the young man and to the young woman : " Don't
marry unless you can take care of yourselves and your
children." It says to the parents : " Live for your children ;
put forth every effort to the end that your children may know
more than you — that they may be better and grander than
you." It says : " You have no right to bring children
into the world that you are not able to educate and feed
and clothe." It says to those who have diseases that can be
transmitted to children : " Do not marry ; do not become

3Q2 INTERVIEWS.

parents ; do not perpetuate suffering, deformity, agony,
imbecility, insanity, poverty, wretchedness."

Secularism tells all children to do the best they can for
their parents — to discharge every duty and every obligation.
It defines the relation that should exist between hus
band and wife ; between parent and child ; between the
citizen and the Nation. And not only that, but between
nations.

Secularism is a religion that is to be used every where and
at all times — that is to be taught everywhere and practiced
at all times. It is not a religion that is so dangerous that
it must be kept out of the schools ; it is not a religion that
is so dangerous that it must be kept out of politics. It be
longs in the schools ; it belongs at the polls. It is the busi
ness of Secularism to teach every child ; to teach every
voter. It is its business to discuss all political problems,
and to decide all questions that affect the rights or the
happiness of a human being.

Orthodox religion is a firebrand ; it must be kept out of
the schools ; it must be kept out of politics. All the
churches unite in saying that orthodox religion is not for
every day use. The Catholics object to any Protestant re
ligion being taught to children. Protestants object to any
Catholic religion being taught to children. But the Secu
larist wants his religion taught to all ; and his religion
can produce no feeling, for the reason that it consists of
facts — of truths. And all of it is important ; important for
the child, important for the parent, important for the poli
tician — for the President — for all in power ; important to
every legislator, to every professional man, to every laborer
and to every farmer — that is to say, to every human being.

The great benefit of Secularism is that it appeals to the
reason of every man. It asks every man to think for him
self. It does not threaten punishment if a man thinks,
but it offers a reward, for fear that he will not think.

INTERVIEWS. 393

It does not say, " You will be damned in another world if
you think." But it says, " You will be damned in this world
if you do not think."

Secularism preserves the manhood and the womanhood
of all. It says to each human being : " Stand upon your
own feet. Count one ! Examine for yourself. Investigate,
observe, think. Express your opinion. Stand by your
judgment, unless you are convinced you are wrong, and
when you are convinced, you can maintain and preserve
your manhood or your womanhood only by admitting that
you were wrong."

It is impossible that the whole world should agree on one
creed. It may be impossible that any two human beings
can agree exactly in religious belief. Secularism teaches
that each one must take care of himself, that the first duty
of man is to himself, to the end that he may be not only
useful to himself, but to others. He who fails to take
care of himself becomes a burden ; the first duty of man is
not to be a burden.

Every Secularist can give a reason for his creed. First
of all, he believes in work — taking care of himself. He be
lieves in the cultivation of the intellect, to the end that he
may take advantage of the forces of nature — to the end that
he may be clothed and fed and sheltered.

He also believes in giving to every other human being
every right that he claims for himself. He does not depend
on prayer. He has no confidence in ghosts or phantoms.
He knows nothing of another world, and knows just as little
of a First Cause. But what little he does know, he endeav
ors to use, and to use for the benefit of himself and others.

He knows that he sustains certain relations to other
sentient beings, and he endeavors to add to the aggregate of
human joy. He is his own church, his own priest, his own
clergyman and his own pope. He decides for himself ; in
other words, he is a free man.

394 INTERVIEWS.

He also has a Bible, and this Bible embraces all the good
and true things that have been written, no matter by whom,
or in what language, or in what tiuie. He accepts every
thing that he believes to be true, and rejects all that he
thinks is false. He knows that nothing is added to the
probability of an event, because there has been an account
of it written and printed.

All that has been said that is true is part of his Bible.
Every splendid and noble thought, every good word, every
kind action — all these you will find in his Bible. And, in
addition to these, all that is absolutely known — that has
been demonstrated — belongs to the Secularist. All the
inventions, machines — everything that has been of assist
ance to the human race — belongs to his religion. The
Secularist is in possession of everything that man has.
He is deprived only of that which man never had. The
orthodox world believes in ghosts and phantoms, in dreams
and prayers, in miracles and monstrosities ; that is to say,
in modern theology. But these things do not exist, or if
they do exist, it is impossible for a human being to ascertain
the fact. Secularism has no "castles in Spain." It has no
glorified fog. It depends upon realities, upon demonstrations ;
and its end and aim is to make this world better every day —
to do away with poverty and crime, and to cover the world
with happy and contented homes.

Let me say, right here, that a few years ago the Secular
Hall at Leicester, England, was opened by a speech from
George Jacob Holyoake, entitled, " Secularism a Religion."
I have never read anything better on the subject of Secu
larism than this address. It is so clear and so manly
that I do not see how any human being can read it with
out becoming convinced, and almost enraptured.

Let me quote a few lines from this address : —

The mind of man would die if it were not for Thought, and were
Thought suppressed, God would rule over a world of idiots.
Nature feeds Thought, day and night, with a million hands.

INTERVIEWS. 395

To think is a duty, because it is a man's duty not to be a fool.

If man does not think himself, he is an intellectual pauper, living
upon the truth acquired by others, and making no contribution him
self in return. He has no ideas but such as he obtains by " out-door
relief," and he goes about the world with a charity mind.

The more thinkers there are in the world, the more truth there is
in the world.

Progress can only walk in the footsteps of Conviction.

Coercion in thought is not progress, it reduces to ignominious pulp
the backbone of the mind.

By Religion I mean the simple creed of deed and duty, by which a
man seeks his own welfare in his own way, with an honest and fair
regard to the welfare and ways of others.

In these thinking and practical days, men demand a religion of
daily life, which stands on a business footing.

I think nothing could be much better than the following,
which shows the exact relation that orthodox religion
sustains to the actual wants of human beings :

The Churches administer a system of Foreign Affairs.

Secularism dwells in a land of its own. It dwells in a land of Cer
titude.

In the Kingdom of Thought there is no conquest over man, but
over foolishness only.

I will not quote more, but hope all who read this will
read the address of Mr. Holyoake, who has, in my judgment,
defined Secularism with the greatest possible clearness.

Question. What, in your opinion, are the best possible
means to spread this gospel or religion of Secularism ?

Answer. This can only be done by the cultivation of the
mind — only through intelligence — because we are fighting
only the monsters of the mind. The phantoms whom we
are endeavoring to destroy do not exist ; they are all im
aginary. They live in that undeveloped or unexplored part
of the mind that belongs to barbarism.

I have sometimes thought that a certain portion of the
mind is cultivated so that it rises above the surrounding
faculties and is like some peak that has lifted itself above
the clouds, while all the valleys below are dark or dim with
mist and cloud. It is in this valley-region, amid these

396 INTERVIEWS.

mists, beneath these clouds, that these monsters and phan
toms are born. And there they will remain until the mind
sheds light — until the brain is developed.

One exceedingly important thing is to teach man that his
mind has limitations ; that there are walls that he cannot
scale — that he cannot pierce, that he cannot dig under.
When a man finds the limitations of his own mind, he
knows that other people's minds have limitations. Then,
instead of believing what the priest says, he asks the priest
questions. In a few moments he finds that the priest has
been drawing on his imagination for what is beyond the
wall. Consequently he finds that the priest knows no more
than he, and it is impossible that he should know more
than he.

An ignorant man has not the slightest suspicion of what
a superior man may do. Consequently, he is liable to be
come the victim of the intelligent and cunning. A man
wholly unacquainted with chemistry, after having been
shown a few wonders, is ready to believe anything. But a
chemist who knows something of the limitations of that
science — who knows what chemists have done and who
knows the nature of things — cannot be imposed upon.
When no one can be imposed upon, orthodox religion
cannot exist. It is an imposture, and there must be im
postors and there must be victims, or the religion cannot be
a success.

Secularism cannot be a success, universally, as long as
there is an impostor or a victim. This is the difference : The
foundation of orthodox religion is imposture. The founda
tion of Secularism is demonstration. Just to the extent
that a man knows, he becomes a Secularist.

Question. What do you think of the action of the Knights
of Labor in Indiana in turning out one of their members
because he was an Atheist, and because he objected to the
reading of the Bible at lodge meetings ?

INTERVIEWS. 397

Answer. In my judgment, the Knights of Labor have
made a great mistake. They want liberty for them
selves — they feel that, to a certain extent, they have been
enslaved and robbed. If they want liberty, they should be
willing to give liberty to others. Certainly one of their
members has the same right to his opinion with regard to
the existence of a God, that the other members have to
theirs.

I do not blame this man for doubting the existence of a
Supreme Being, provided he understands the history of
liberty. When a man takes into consideration the fact
that for many thousands of years labor was unpaid, nearly
all of it being done by slaves, and that millions and hun
dreds of millions of human beings were bought and sold the
same as cattle, and that during all that time the religions of
the world upheld the practice, and the priests of the count
less unknown gods insisted that the institution of slavery
was divine — I do not wonder that he comes to the conclu
sion that, perhaps, after all, there is no Supreme Being—
at least none who pays any particular attention to the
affairs of this world.

If one will read the history of the slave-trade, of the
cruelties practiced, of the lives sacrificed, of the tortures in-
. flicted, he will at least wonder why " a God of infinite good
ness and wisdom " did not interfere just a little ; or, at least,
why he did not deny that he was in favor of the trade.
Here, in our own country, millions of men were enslaved,
and hundreds and thousands of ministers stood up in their
pulpits, with their Bibles in front of them, and proceeded to
show that slavery was about the only institution that they
were absolutely certain was divine. And they proved it
by reading passages from this very Bible that the Knights
of Labor in Indiana are anxious to have read in their
meetings. For their benefit, let me call their attention to a
few passages, and suggest that, hereafter, they read those

398 INTERVIEWS.

passages at every meeting, for the purpose of convincing all
the Knights that the Lord is on the side of those who work
for a living : —

Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have, shall
be of the heathen round about you ; of them shall ye buy bondmen
and bondmaids.

Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among
you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families which are with you,
which they begat in your land : and they shall be your possession.

And ye shall take them as an inheritance, for your children after
you to inherit them for a possession. They shall be your bondmen
forever.

Nothing seems more natural to me than that a man who
believes that labor should be free, and that he who works
should be free, should come to the conclusion that the
passages above quoted are not entirely on his side. I
don't see why people should be in favor of free bodies
who are not also in favor of free minds. If the mind is to
remain in imprisonment, it is hardly worth while to free
the body. If the man has the right to labor, he certainly has
the right to use his mind, because without mind he can do no
labor. As a rule, the more mind he has, the more valuable
his labor is, and the freer his mind is the more valuable
it is.

If the Knights of Labor expect to accomplish anything
in this world, they must do it by thinking. They must
have reason on their side, and the only way they can do
anything by thinking is to allow each other to think.
Let all the men who do not believe in the inspiration of
the Bible, leave the Knights of Labor and I do not know
how many would be left. But I am perfectly certain that
those left will accomplish very little, simply from their lack
of sense.

Intelligent clergymen have abandoned the idea of plenary
inspiration. The best ministers in the country admit that
the Bible is full of mistakes, and while many of them are

INTERVIEWS. 399

forced to say that slavery is upheld by the Old Testament
they also insist that slavery was and is, and forever will be,
wrong. What had the Knights of Labor to do with a ques
tion of religion ? What business is it of theirs who believes
or disbelieves in the religion of the day ? Nobody can de
fend the rights of labor without defending the right to
think.

I hope that in time these Knights will become intelligent
enough to read in their meetings something of importance ;
something that applies to this century ; something that will
throw a little light on questions under discussion at the
present time. The idea of men engaged in a kind of
revolution reading from Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Haggai,
for the purpose of determining the rights of workingmen in
the nineteenth century ! No wonder such men have been
swallowed by the whale of monopoly. And no wonder that,
while they are in the belly of this fish, they insist on casting
out a man with sense enough to understand the situation !
The Knights of Labor have made a mistake and the
sooner they reverse their action the better for all concerned.
Nothing should be taught in this world that somebody

does not know. — Secular Thought, Toronto, Canada, August 25, 1888.

SUMMER RECREATION— MR. GLADSTONE.

Question. What is the best philosophy of summer recrea
tion?

Answer. As a matter of fact, no one should be over
worked. Recreation becomes necessary only when a man
has abused himself or has been abused. Holidays grew out
of slavery. An intelligent man ought not to work so hard
to-day that he is compelled to rest to-morrow. Each day
should have its labor and its rest. But in our civili
zation, if it can be called civilization, every man is
expected to devote himself entirely to business for the
most of the year and by that means to get into such

4OO INTERVIEWS.

a state of body and mind that he requires, for the pur
pose of recreation, the inconveniences, the poor diet, the
horrible beds, the little towels, the warm water, the stale
eggs and the tough beef of the average "resort." For the
purpose of getting his mental and physical machinery in
fine working order, he should live in a room for two or
three months that is about eleven by thirteen ; that is to
say, he should live in a trunk, fight mosquitoes, quarrel
with strangers, dispute bills, and generally enjoy himself ;
and this is supposed to be the philosophy of summer
recreation. He can do this, or he can go to some extremely
fashionable resort where his time is taken up in making
himself and family presentable.

Seriously, there are few better summer resorts than New
York City. If there were no city here it would be the
greatest resort for the summer on the continent ; with its
rivers, its bay, with its wonderful scenery, with the winds
from the sea, no better could be found. But we cannot in
this age of the world live in accordance with philosophy.
No particular theory can be carried out. We must live as
we must ; we must earn our bread and we must earn it as
others do, and, as a rule, we must work when others work.
Consequently, if we are to take any recreation we must fol
low the example of others ; go when they go and come when
they come. In other words, man is a social being, and if
one endeavors to carry individuality to an extreme he must
suffer the consequences. So I have made up my mind to
work as little as I can and to rest as much as I can.

Question. What is your opinion of Mr. Gladstone as a
controversialist ?

Answer. Undoubtedly Mr. Gladstone is a man of great
talent, of vast and varied information, and undoubtedly he
is, politically speaking, at least, one of the greatest men in
England — possibly the greatest. As a controversialist, and
I suppose by that you mean on religious questions, he is

INTERVIEWS. 4OI

certainly as good as his cause. Few men can better defend
the indefensible than Mr. Gladstone. Few men can bring
forward more probabilities in favor of the improbable, or
more possibilities in favor of the impossible, than Mr.
Gladstone. He is, in my judgment, controlled in the realm
of religion by sentiment; he was taught long ago certain
things as absolute truths and he has never questioned them.
He has had all he can do to defend them. It is of but
little use to attack sentiment with argument, or to attack
argument with sentiment. A question of sentiment can
hardly be discussed; it is like a question of taste. A man
is enraptured with a landscape by Corot; you cannot argue
him out of his rapture; the sharper the criticism the greater
his admiration, because he feels that it is incumbent upon
him to defend the painter who has given him so much real
pleasure. Some people imagine that what they think ought
to exist must exist, and that what they really desire to be
true is true. We must remember that Mr. Gladstone has
been what is called a deeply religious man all his life.
There was a time when he really believed it to be the duty
of the government to see to it that the citizens were relig
ious ; when he really believed that no man should hold any
office or any position under the government who was not
a believer in the established religion ; who was not a de
fender of the parliamentary faith. I do not know whether
he has ever changed his opinions upon these subjects or
not. There is not the slightest doubt as to his honesty, as
to his candor. He says what he believes, and for his
belief he gives the reasons that are satisfactory to him. To
me it seems impossible that miracles can be defended. I do
not see how it is possible to bring forward any evidence that
any miracle was ever performed ; and unless miracles have
been performed, Christianity has no basis as a system. Mr.
Hume took the ground that it was impossible to substan
tiate a miracle, for the reason that it is more probable that

402 INTERVIEWS.

the witnesses are mistaken, or are dishonest, than that a
fact in nature should be violated. For instance : A man
says that at a certain time, in a certain locality, the attrac
tion of gravitation was suspended; that there were several
moments during which a cannon ball weighed nothing, dur
ing which when dropped from the hand, or rather when
released from the hand, it refused to fall and remained in
the air. It is safe to say that no amount of evidence, no
number of witnesses, could convince an intelligent man to
day that such a thing occurred. We believe too thoroughly in
the constancy of nature. While men will not believe wit
nesses who testify to the happening of miracles now, they
seem to have perfect confidence in men whom they never
saw, who have been dead for two thousand years. Of
course it is known that Mr. Gladstone has published a few
remarks concerning my religious views and that I have
answered him the best I could. I have no opinion to give
as to that controversy; neither would it be proper for me to
say what I think of the arguments advanced by Mr. Glad
stone in addition to what I have already published. I am
willing to leave the controversy where it is, or I am ready
to answer any further objections that Mr. Gladstone may
be pleased to urge.

In my judgment, the "Age of Faith" is passing away.
We are living in a time of demonstration.

NOTE : From an unfinished interview found among Colonel Ingersoll's papers.

PROHIBITION.

It has been decided by many courts in various States that
the traffic in liquor can be regulated — that it is a police
question. It has been decided by the courts in Iowa that
its manufacture and sale can be prohibited, and, not only
so, but that a distillery or a brewery may be declared a
nuisance and may legally be abated, and these decisions have
been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.

INTERVIEWS. 403

Consequently, it has been settled by the highest tribunal
that States have the power either to regulate or to prohibit
the sale of intoxicating liquors, and not only so, but that
States have the power to destroy breweries and distilleries
without making any compensation to owners.

So it has always been considered within the power of the
State to license the selling o'f intoxicating liquors. In other
words, this question is one that the States can decide for
themselves. It is not, and it should not be, in my judgment,
a Federal question. It is something with which the United
States has nothing to do. It belongs to the States; and
where a majority of the people are in favor of prohibition
and pass laws to that effect, there is nothing in the Consti
tution of the United States that interferes with such action.

The remaining question, then, is not a question of power,
but a question of policy, and at the threshold of this ques
tion is another : Can prohibitory laws be enforced ? There
are to-day in Kansas, — a prohibition State — more saloons,
that is to say, more places in which liquor is sold, than
there are in Georgia, a State without prohibition legislation.
There are more in Nebraska, according to the population,
more in Iowa, according to the population, than in many
of the States in which there is the old license system. You
will find that the United States has granted more licenses
to wholesale and retail dealers in these prohibition States, —
according to the population, than in many others in which
prohibition has not been adopted.

These facts tend to show that it is not enough for the
Legislature to say: "Be it enacted." Behind every law
there must be an intelligent and powerful public opinion.
A law, to be enforced, must be the expression of such power
ful and intelligent opinion ; otherwise it becomes a dead let
ter ; it is avoided; judges continue the cases, juries refuse
to convict, and witnesses are not particular about telling
the truth. Such laws demoralize the community, or, to put
it in another way, demoralized communities pass such laws.

404 INTERVIEWS.

Question. What do you think of the prohibitory move
ment on general principles ?

Answer. The trouble is that when a few zealous men,
intending to reform the world, endeavor to enforce unpopu
lar laws, they are compelled to resort to detectives, to a sys
tem of espionage. For the purpose of preventing the sale
of liquors somebody has to watch. Eyes and ears must be
come acquainted with keyholes. Every neighbor suspects
every other. A man with a bottle or demijohn is followed.
Those who drink get behind doors, in cellars and garrets.
Hypocrisy becomes substantially universal. Old fashioned
sociability becomes impossible. Hundreds of people become
suddenly afflicted with a variety of diseases, for the cure of
which alcohol in some form is supposed to be indispensable.
Malaria becomes general, and it is perfectly astonishing
how long a few pieces of Peruvian bark will last, and how
often the liquor can be renewed without absorbing the medi
cinal qualities of the bark. The State becomes a paradise
for patent medicine — the medicine being poor whisky with
a scientific name.

Physicians become popular in proportion as liquor of some
kind figures in their prescriptions. Then in the towns
clubs are formed, the principal object being to establish a
saloon, and in many instances the drug store becomes a
favorite resort, especially on Sundays.

There is, however, another side to this question. It is
this : Nothing in this world is more important than personal
liberty. Many people are in favor of blotting out the sun
to prevent the growth of weeds. This is the mistake of all
prohibitory fanaticism.

Question. What is true temperance, Colonel Ingersoll ?

Answer. Men have used stimulants for many thousand
years, and as much is used to-day in various forms as in any
other period of the world's history. They are used with
more prudence now than ever before, for the reason that the

INTERVIEWS. 405

average man is more intelligent now than ever before. In
telligence has much to do with temperance. The barbarian
rushes to the extreme, for the reason that but little, com
paratively, depends upon his personal conduct or personal
habits. Now the struggle for life is so sharp, competition
is so severe, that few men can succeed who carry a useless
burden. The business men of our country are compelled
to lead temperate lives, otherwise their credit is gone. Men
of wealth, men of intelligence, do not wish to employ in
temperate physicians. They are not willing to trust their
health or their lives with a physician who is under the in
fluence of liquor. The same is true of business men in re
gard to their legal interests. They insist upon having
sober attorneys ; they want the counsel of a sober man. So
in every department. On the railways it is absolutely es
sential that the engineer, that the conductor, the train de-
spatcher and every other employe, in whose hands are the
lives of men, should be temperate. The consequence is that
under the law of the survival of the fittest, the intemperate
are slowly but surely going to the wall ; they are slowly
but surely being driven out of employments of trust and
importance. As we rise in the scale of civilization we con
tinually demand better and better service. We are continu
ally insisting upon better habits, upon a higher standard ot
integrity, of fidelity. These are the causes, in my judgment,
that are working together in the direction of true temper
ance.

Question. Do you believe the people can be made to do
without a stimulant ?

Answer. The history of the world shows that all men
who have advanced one step beyond utter barbarism have
used some kind of stimulant. Man has sought for it in
every direction. Every savage loves it. Everything has
been tried. Opium has been used by many hundreds of
millions. Hasheesh has filled countless brains with chaotic

406 INTERVIEWS.

dreams, and everywhere that civilization has gone the blood
of the grape ha^ been used. Nothing is easier now to ob
tain than liquor. In one bushel of corn there are at least
five gallons — four can easily be extracted. All starch, all
sugars, can be changed almost instantly into alcohol. Every
grain that grows has in it the intoxicating principle, and, as
a matter of fact, nearly all of the corn, wheat, sugar and
starch that man eats is changed into alcohol in his stomach.
Whether man can be compelled to do without a stimulant is
a question that I am unable to answer. Of one thing we
are certain : He has never yet been compelled to do with
out one. The tendency, I think, of modern times is
toward a milder stimulant than distilled liquors. Whisky
and brandies are too strong ; wine and beer occupy the mid
dle ground. Wine is a fireside, whisky a conflagration.

It seems to me that it would be far better if the Prohi
bitionists would turn their attention toward distilled spirits.
If they were willing to compromise, the probability is that
they would have public opinion on their side. If they
would say : " You may have all the beer and all the wine
and cider you wish, and you can drink them when and
where you desire, but the sale of distilled spirits shall be
prohibited," it is possible that this could be carried out in
good faith in many if not in most of the States — possibly in
all. We all know that the effect of wine, even when taken
in excess, is nothing near as disastrous as the effect of dis
tilled spirits. Why not take the middle ground ? The wine
drinkers of the old country are not drunkards. They have
been drinking wine for many generations. It is drank by
men, women and children. It adds to the sociability of the
family. It does not separate the husband from the rest, it
keeps them all together, and in that view is rather a benefit
than an injury. Good wine can be raised as cheaply here
as in any part of the world. In nearly every part of our
country the grape grows and good wine can be made. If

INTERVIEWS. 407

our people had a taste for wine they would lose the taste for
stronger drink, and they would be disgusted with the sur
roundings of the stronger drink.

The same may be said in favor of beer. As long as the
Prohibitionists make no distinction between wine and
whisky, between beer and brandy, just so long they will be
regarded by most people as fanatics.

The Prohibitionists cannot expect to make this question
a Federal one. The United States has no jurisdiction of
this subject. Congress can pass no laws affecting this
question that could have any force except in such parts of
our country as are not within the jurisdiction of States. It
is a question for the States and not for the Federal Govern
ment. The Prohibitionists are simply throwing away their
votes. Let us suppose that we had a Prohibition Congress
and a Prohibition President — what steps could be taken to
do away with drinking in the city of New York ? What
steps could be taken in any State of this Union ? What
could by any possibility be done ?

A few years ago the Prohibitionists demanded above all
things that the tax be taken from distilled spirits, claiming
at that time that such a tax made the Government a partner
in vice.

Now when the Republican party proposes under certain
circumstances to remove that tax, the Prohibitionists
denounce the movement as one in favor of intemperance.
We have also been told that the tax on whisky should be
kept for the reason that it increases the price, and that an
increased price tends to make a temperate people ; that if
the tax is taken off, the price will fall and the whole country
start on the downward road to destruction. Is it possible
that human nature stands on such slippery ground ? Is it
possible that our civilization to-day rests upon the price
of alcohol, and that, should the price be reduced, we would
all go down together ? For one, I cannot entertain such a

408 INTERVIEWS.

humiliating and disgraceful view of human nature. I be
lieve that man is destined to grow greater, grander and
nobler. I believe that no matter what the cost of alcohol
may be, life will grow too valuable to be thrown away. Men
hold life according to its value. Men, as a rule, only throw
away their lives when they are not worth keeping. When
life becomes worth living it will be carefully preserved and
will be hoarded to the last grain of sand that falls through
the glass of time.

Question. What is the reason for so much intemperance ?

Answer. When many people are failures, when they are
distanced in the race, when they fall behind, when they give
up, when they lose ambition, when they finally become con
vinced that they are worthless, then they are in danger of
becoming intemperate, precisely as they are in danger of
becoming dishonest. In other words, having failed in the
race of life on the highway, they endeavor to reach the goal
by going across lots, by crawling through the grass. Dis
guise this matter as we may, all people are not successes,
all people have not the brain or the muscle or the moral
stamina necessary to succeed. Some fall in one way, some
in another ; some in the net of strong drink, some in the
web of circumstances and others in a thousand ways, and
the world itself cannot grow better unless the unworthy fall.
The law is the survival of the fittest, that is to say, the
destruction of the unfit. There is no scheme of morals, no
scheme of government, no scheme of charity, that can re
verse this law. If it could be reversed, then the result would
be the survival of the unfittest, the speedy end of which
would be the extinction of the human race.

Temperance men say that it is wise, in so far as possible,
to remove temptation from our fellow-men.

Let us look at this in regard to other matters. How can
we do away with larceny? We cannot remove property.
We cannot destroy the money of the world to keep people

INTERVIEWS. 409

from stealing some of it. In other words, we cannot afford
to make the world valueless to prevent larceny. All
strength by which temptation is resisted must come from
the inside. Virtue does not depend upon the obstacles to
be overcome; virtue depends upon what is inside of the
man. A man is not honest because the safe of the bank is
perfectly secure. Upon the honest man the condition of
the safe has no effect. We will never succeed in raising
great and splendid people by keeping them out of tempta
tion. Great people withstand temptation. Great people
have what may be called moral muscle, moral force. They
are poised within themselves. They understand their re
lations to the world. The best possible foundation for
honesty is the intellectual perception that dishonesty can,
under no circumstances, be a good investment — that
larcency is not only wicked, but foolish — not only
criminal, but stupid — that crimes are committed only by
fools.

On every hand there is what is called temptation. Every
man has the opportunity of doing wrong. Every man, in
this country, has the opportunity of drinking too much,
has the opportunity of acquiring the opium habit, has the
opportunity of taking morphine every day — in other words,
has the opportunity of destroying himself. How are they
to be prevented ? Most of them are prevented — at least in
a reasonable degree — and they are prevented by their in
telligence, by their surroundings, by their education, by
their objects and aims in life, by the people they love, by
the people who love them.

No one will deny the evils of intemperance, and it is
hardly to be wondered at that people who regard only one
side — who think of the impoverished and wretched, of wives
and children in want, of desolate homes — become the advo
cates of absolute prohibition. At the same time, there is a
philosophic side, and the question is whether more good

4IO INTERVIEWS.

cannot be done by moral influence, by example, by educa
tion, by the gradual civilization of our fellow-inen, than in
any other possible way. The greatest things are accom
plished by indirection. In this way the idea of force, of
slavery, is avoided. The person influenced does not feel
that he has been trampled upon, does not regard himself as
a victim — he feels rather as a pupil, as one who receives a
benefit, whose mind has been enlarged, whose life has been
enriched — whereas the direct way of " Thou shalt not " pro
duces an antagonism — in other words, produces the natural
result of " I will."

By removing one temptation you add strength to others.
By depriving a man of one stimulant, as a rule, you drive
him to another, and the other may be far worse than the
one from which he has been driven. We have hundreds of
laws making certain things misdemeanors, which are natu
rally right.

Thousands of people, honest in most directions, delight in
outwitting the Government — derive absolute pleasure from
getting in a few clothes and gloves and shawls without
the payment of duty. Thousands of people buy things in
Europe for which they pay more than they would for the
same things in America, and then exercise their ingenuity
in slipping them through the custom-house.

A law to have real force must spring from the nature of
things, and the justice of this law must be generally per
ceived, otherwise it will be evaded.

The temperance people themselves are playing into the
hands of the very party that would refuse to count their votes.
Allow the Democrats to remain in power, allow the Demo
crats to be controlled by the South, and a large majority
might be in favor of temperance legislation, and yet the
votes would remain uncounted. The party of reform has
a great interest in honest elections, and honest elections
must first be obtained as the foundation of reform. The

INTERVIEWS. 41 1

Prohibitionists can take their choice between these parties.
Would it not be far better for the Prohibitionists to say :
" We will vote for temperance men : we will stand with the
party that is the nearest in favor of what we deem to be the
right " ? The other course is more nearly allied to spite than to
principle. They should also take into consideration that
other people are as honest as they ; that others disbelieve in
prohibition as honestly as they believe in it, and that other
people cannot leave their principles to vote for prohibition ;
and they must remember, that these other people are in the
majority.

Mr. Fisk knows that he cannot be elected President —
knows that it is impossible for him to carry any State in
the Union. He also knows that in nearly every State in the
Union — probably in all — a majority of the people believe
in stimulants. Why not work with this great and en
lightened majority ? Why rush to the extreme for the
purpose not only of making yourself useless but hurt
ful ?

No man in the world is more opposed to intemperance
than I am. No man in the world feels more keenly the
evils and the agony produced by the crime of drunkenness.
And yet I would not be willing to sacrifice liberty, indi
viduality, and the glory and greatness of individual free
dom, to do away with all the evils of intemperance. In
other words, I believe that slavery, oppression and sup
pression would crowd humanity into a thousand deformitiesl
the result of which would be a thousand times more disas
trous to the well-being of man. I do not believe in the
slave virtues, in the monotony of tyranny, in the respectabil
ity produced by force. I admire the men who have grown in
the atmosphere of liberty, who have the pose of independ
ence, the virtues of strength, of heroism, ana in whose
hearts is the magnanimity, the tenderness, and the courage

born of victory. — New York World, October 21, 1888.

ROBERT ELSMERE.

Why do people read a book like " Robert Elsmere,"
and why do they take any interest in it ? Simply be
cause they are not satisfied with the religion of our day.
The civilized world has outgrown the greater part of the
Christian creed. Civilized people have lost their belief in the
reforming power of punishment. They find that whips
and imprisonment have but little influence for good. The
truth has dawned upon their minds that eternal punish
ment is infinite cruelty — that it can serve no good purpose,
and that the eternity of hell makes heaven impossible.
That there can be in this universe no perfectly happy place
while there is a perfectly miserable place — that no infinite
being can be good who knowingly and, as one may say,
willfully created myriads of human beings, knowing that
they would be eternally miserable. In other words, the
civilized man is greater, tenderer, nobler, nearer just than
the old idea of God. The ideal of a few thousand years
ago is far below the real of to-day. No good man now
would do what Jehovah is said to have done four thousand
years ago, and no civilized human being would now do
what, according to the Christian religion, Christ threatens
to do at the day of judgment.

Question. Has the Christian religion changed in theory of
late years, Colonel Ingersoll ?

Answer. A few years ago the Deists denied the inspiration
of the Bible on account of its cruelty. At the same time
they worshiped what they were pleased to call the God
of Nature. Now we are convinced that Nature is as cruel
as the Bible ; so that, if the God of Nature did not write the
Bible, this God at least has caused earthquakes and pesti
lence and famine, and this God has allowed millions of his
children to destroy one another. So that now we have

(412)

INTERVIEWS. 413

arrived at the question — not as to whether the Bible is in
spired and not as to whether Jehovah is the real God, but
whether there is a God or not. The intelligence of Chris
tendom to-day does not believe in an inspired religion any
more than it believes in an inspired art or an inspired litera
ture. If there be an infinite God, inspiration in some partic
ular regard would be a patch — it would be the puttying of
a crack, the hiding of a defect — in other words, it would
show that the general plan was defective.

Question. Do you consider any religion adequate ?

Answer. A good man, living in England, drawing a cer
tain salary for reading certain prayers on stated occasions,
for making a few remarks on the subject of religion, put
ting on clothes of a certain cut, wearing a gown with cer
tain frills and flounces starched in an orthodox manner, and
then looking about him at the suffering and agony of the
world, would not feel satisfied that he was doing anything
of value for the human race. In the first place, he would
deplore his own weakness, his own poverty, his inability to
help his fellow-men. He would long every moment for
wealth, that he might feed the hungry and clothe the naked
— for knowledge, for miraculous power, that he might heal
the sick and the lame and that he might give to the deform
ed the beauty of proportion. He would begin to wonder
how a being of infinite goodness and infinite power could
allow his children to die, to suffer, to be deformed by
necessity, by poverty, to be tempted beyond resistance ; how
he could allow the few to live in luxury, and the many in
poverty and want, and the more he wondered the more use
less and ironical would seem to himself his sermons and his
prayers. Such a man is driven to the conclusion that
religion accomplishes but little — that it creates as much
want as it alleviates, and that it burdens the world with
parasites. Such a man would be forced to think of the
millions wasted in superstition. In other words, the

414 INTERVIEWS.

inadequacy, the uselessness of religion would be forced
upon his mind. He would ask himself the question : " Is it
possible that this is a divine institution ? Is this all that
man can do with the assistance of God ? Is this the best ? "

Question. That is a perfectly reasonable question, is it not,
Colonel Ingersoll ?

Answer. The moment a man reaches the point where he
asks himself this question he has ceased to be an orthodox
Christian. It will not do to say that in some other world
justice will be done. If God allows injustice to triumph
here, why not there ?

Robert Elsmere stands in the dawn of philosophy. There
is hardly light enough for him to see clearly ; but there is
so much light that the stars in the night of superstition are
obscured.

Question. You do not deny that a religious belief is a
comfort ?

Answer. There is one thing that it is impossible for me
to comprehend. Why should any one, when convinced
that Christianity is a superstition, have or feel a sense of
loss? Certainly a man acquainted with England, with
London, having at the same time something like a heart,
must feel overwhelmed by the failure of what is known as
Christianity. Hundreds of thousands exist there without
decent food, dwelling in tenements, clothed with rags, famil
iar with every form of vulgar .vice, where the honest poor
eat the crust that the vicious throw away. When this man
of intelligence, of heart, visits the courts ; when he finds
human liberty a thing treated as of no value, and when he
hears the judge sentencing girls and boys to the penitenti
ary — knowing that a stain is being put upon them that all
the tears of all the coming years can never wash away, —
knowing, too, and feeling that this is done without the
slightest regret, without the slightest sympathy, as a mere
matter of form, and that the judge puts this brand of infamy

INTERVIEWS. 415

upon the forehead of the convict just as cheerfully as a
Mexican brands his cattle ; and when this man of intelli
gence and heart knows that these poor people are simply
the victims of society, the unfortunates who stumble and
over whose bodies rolls the Juggernaut — he knows that there
is, or at least appears to be, no power above or below work
ing for righteousness — that from the heavens is stretched
no protecting hand. And when a man of intelligence and
heart in England visits the workhouse, the last resting
place of honest labor; when he thinks that the young man,
without any great intelligence, but with a good constitution,
starts in the morning of his life for the workhouse, and that
it is impossible for the laboring man, one who simply has
his muscle, to save anything ; that health is not able to lay
anything by for the days of disease — when the man of intel
ligence and heart sees all this, he is compelled to say that
the civilization of to-day, the religion of to-day, the charity
of to-day — no matter how much of good there may be
behind them or in them, are failures.

A few years ago people were satisfied when the minister
said: " All this will be made even in another world ; a crust-
eater here will sit at the head of the banquet there, and the
king here will beg for the crumbs that fall from the table
there." When this was said, the poor man hoped and the
king laughed. A few years ago the church said to the
slave : " You will be free in another world and your freedom
will be made glorious by the perpetual spectacle of your
master in hell." But the people — that is, many of the peo
ple — are no longer deceived by what once were considered
fine phrases. They have suffered so much that they no
longer wish to see others suffer and no longer think of the
suffering of others as a source of joy to themselves. The
poor see that the eternal starvation of kings and queens in
another world v^ill be no compensation for \vliat they have
suffered here. The old religions appear vulgar and the

416 INTERVIEWS.

ideas of rewards and punishments are only such as would
satisfy a cannibal chief or one of his favorites.

Question. Do you think the Christian religion has made
the world better ?

Answer. For many centuries there has been preached
and taught in an almost infinite number of ways a super
natural religion. During all this time the world has been
in the care of the Infinite, and yet every imaginable vice
has flourished, every imaginable pang has been suffered,
and every injustice has been done. During all these years
the priests have enslaved the minds, and the kings the
bodies, of men. The priests did what they did in the name
of God, and the kings appeal to the same source of
authority. Man suffered as long as he could. Revolution,
reformation, was simply a re-action, a cry from the poor
wretch that was between the upper and the nether mill
stone. The liberty of man has increased just in the
proportion that the authority of the gods has decreased. In
other words, the wants of man, instead of the wishes of
God, have inaugurated what we call progress, and there
is this difference : Theology is based upon the narrowest
and intensest form of selfishness. Of course, the theologian
knows, the Christian knows, that he can do nothing for
God ; consequently all that he does must be and is for him
self, his object being to win the approbation of this God, to
the end that he may become a favorite. On the other side,
men touched not only by their own misfortunes, but by
the misfortunes of others, are moved not simply by selfish
ness, but by a splendid sympathy with their fellow-men.

Question. Christianity certainly fosters charity ?

Answer. Nothing is more cruel than orthodox theology,
nothing more heartless than a charitable institution. For
instance, in England, think for a moment of the manner in
which charities are distributed, the way in which the crust
is flung at Lazarus. If that parable could be now retold, the

INTERVIEWS. 417

dogs would bite him. The same is true in this country.
The institution has nothing but contempt for the one it
relieves. The people in charge regard the pauper as one
who has wrecked himself. They feel very much as a man
would feel rescuing from the water some hare-brained
wretch who had endeavored to swim the rapids of Niagara —
the moment they reach him they begin to upbraid him for
being such a fool. This course makes charity a hypocrite,
with every pauper for its enemy.

Mrs. Ward compelled Robert Elsmere to perceive, in
some slight degree, the failure of Christianity to do away
with vice and suffering, with poverty and crime. We
know that the rich care but little for the poor. No matter
how religious the rich may be, the sufferings of their fel
lows have but little effect upon them. We are also be
ginning to see that what is called charity will never redeem
this world.

The poor man willing to work, eager to main
tain his independence, knows that there is something
higher than charity — that is to say, justice. He finds
that many years before he was born his country was
divided out between certain successful robbers, flatterers,
cringers and ciawlers, and that in consequence of such
division not only himself, but a large majority of his fel
low-men are tenants, renters, occupying the surface of the
earth only at the pleasure of others. He finds, too, that
these people who have done nothing and who do nothing,
have everything, and that those who do everything have
but little. He finds that idleness has the money and that
the toilers are compelled to bow to the idlers. He finds
also that the young men of genius are bribed by social
distinctions— unconsciously it may be— but still bribed
in a thousand ways. He finds that the church is a kind
of waste-basket into which are thrown the younger sons
of titled idleness,

41 8 INTERVIEWS.

Question. Do you consider that society in general has
been made better by religious influences ?

Answer. Society is corrupted because the laurels, the titles,
are in the keeping and within the gift of the corrupters.
Christianity is not an enemy of this system — it is in har
mony with it. Christianity reveals to us a universe pre
sided over by an infinite autocrat — a universe without repub
licanism, without democracy — a universe where all power
comes from one and the same source, and where everyone
using authority is accountable, not to the people, but to
this supposed source of authority. Kings reign by divine
right. Priests are ordained in a divinely appointed way —
they do not get their office from man. Man is their serv
ant, not their master.

In the story of Robert Elsmere all there is of Christianity
is left except the miraculous. Theism remains, and
the idea of a protecting Providence is left, together
with a belief in the immeasureable superiority of Jesus
Christ. That is to say, the miracles are discarded
for lack of evidence, and only for lack of evidence ; not on
the ground that they are impossible, not on the ground
that they impeach and deny the integrity of cause and
effect, not on the ground that they contradict the self-evi
dent proposition that an effect must have an efficient cause,
but like the Scotch verdict, " not proven." It is an effort to
save and keep in repair the dungeons of the Inquisition
for the sake of the beauty of the vines that have overrun
them. Many people imagine that falsehoods may be
come respectable on account of age, that a certain rever
ence goes with antiquity, and that if a mistake is covered
with the moss of sentiment it is altogether more credible
than a parvenu fact. They endeavor to introduce the
idea of aristocracy into the world of thought, believing,
and honestly believing, that a falsehood long believed is
far superior to a truth that is generally denied.

INTERVIEWS. 419

Question. If Robert Elsmere's views were commonly
adopted what would be the effect ?

Answer. The new religion of Elsmere is, after all, only
a system of outdoor relief, an effort to get successful
piracy to give up a larger per cent, for the relief of its
victims. The abolition of the system is not dreamed of.
A civilized minority could not by any possibility be
happy while a majority of the world were miserable. A
civilized majority could not be happy while a minority
were miserable. As a matter of fact, a civilized world
could not be happy while one man was really miserable. At
the foundation of civilization is justice — that is to say,
the giving of an equal opportunity to all the children of
men. Secondly, there can be no civilization in the highest
sense until sympathy becomes universal. We must have
a new definition for success. We must have new ideals.
The man who succeeds in amassing wealth, who gathers
money for himself, is not a success. It is an exceedingly
low ambition to be rich to excite the envy of others, or
for the sake of the vulgar power it gives to triumph over
others. Such men are failures. So the man who wins
fame, position, power, and wins these for the sake of him
self, and wields this power not for the elevation of his fel
low-men, but simply to control, is a miserable failure.
He may dispense thousands of millions in charity, and his
charity may be prompted by the meanest part of his nature
— using it simply as a bait to catch more fish and to pre
vent the rising tide of indignation that might overwhelm
him. Men who steal millions and then give a small per
centage to the Lord to gain the praise of the clergy and to
bring the salvation of their souls within the possibilities
of imagination, are all failures.

Robert Elsmere gains our affection and our applause to the
extent that he gives up what are known as orthodox views,
and his wife Catherine retains our respect in the proportion

420 INTERVIEWS.

that she lives the doctrine that Elsmere preaches. By
doing what she believes to be right, she gains our forgive
ness for her creed. One is astonished that she can be as
good as she is, believing as she does. The utmost stretch
of our intellectual charity is to allow the old wine to be
put in a new bottle, and yet she regrets the absence of the
old bottle — she really believes that the bottle is the im
portant thing — that the wine is but a secondary considera
tion. She misses the label, and not having perfect confi
dence in her own taste, she does not feel quite sure that
the wine is genuine.

Question. What, on the whole, is your judgment of the
book?

Answer. I think the book conservative. It is an effort to
save something — a few shreds and patches and ravelings
— from the wreck. Theism is difficult to maintain. Why
should we expect an infinite Being to do better in another
world than he has done and is doing in this ? If he allows
the innocent to suffer here, why not there ? If he allows
rascality to succeed in this world, why not in the next ?
To believe in God and to deny his personality is an ex
ceedingly vague foundation for a consolation. If you in
sist on his personality and power, then it is impossible to
account for what happens. Why should an infinite God
allow some of his children to enslave others ? Why should
he allow a child of his to burn another child of his, under
the impression that such a. sacrifice was pleasing to him ?

Unitarianism lacks the motive power. Orthodox people
who insist that nearly everybody is going to hell, and that
it is their duty to do what little they can to save their souls,
have what you might call a spur to action. We can im
agine a philanthropic man engaged in the business of
throwing ropes to persons about to go over the falls of
Niagara, but we can hardly think of his carrying on the
business after becoming convinced that there are no falls,

INTERVIEWS. 421

or that people go over them in perfect safety. In this
country the question has come up whether all the heathen
are bound to be damned unless they believe in the gospel.
Many admit that the heathen will be saved if they are
good people, and that they will not be damned for not
believing something that they never heard. The really
orthodox people — that is to say, the missionaries — instantly
see that this doctrine destroys their business. They take
the ground that there is but one way to be saved — you
must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ — and they are will
ing to admit, and cheerfully to admit, that the heathen for
man}7 generations have gone in an unbroken column down
to eternal wrath. And they not only admit this, but insist
upon it, to the end that subscriptions may not cease.
With them salary and salvation are convertible terms.

The tone of this book is not of the highest. Too much
stress is laid upon social advantages — too much respect
for fashionable folly and for ancient absurdity. It is
hard for me to appreciate the feelings of one who thinks it
difficult to give up the consolations of the gospel. What
are the consolations of the Church of England ? It is a
religion imposed upon the people by authority. It is the
gospel at the mouth of a cannon, at the point of a bayonet,
enforced by all authority, from the beadle to the Queen. It
is a parasite living upon tithes — these tithes being collected
by the army and navy. It produces nothing — is simply a
beggar— or rather an aggregation of beggars. It teaches
nothing of importance. It discovers nothing. It is under
obligation not to investigate. It has agreed to remain
stationary not only, but to resist all innovation. Accord
ing to the creed of this church, a very large proportion of
the human race is destined to suffer eternal pain. This
does not interfere with the quiet, with the serenity and re
pose of the average clergyman. They put on their gowns,
they read the service, they repeat the creed and feel that

422 INTERVIEWS.

their duty has been done. How any one can feel that he is
giving up something of value when he finds that the
Episcopal creed is untrue is beyond my imagination. I
should think that every good man and woman would over
flow with joy, that every heart would burst into countless
blossoms the moment the falsity of the Episcopal creed was
established.

Christianity is the most heartless of all religions — the
most unforgiving, the most revengeful. According to the
Episcopalian belief, God becomes the eternal prosecutor of
his own children. I know of no creed believed by any tribe,
not excepting the tribes where cannibalism is practiced,
that is more heartless, more inhuman than this. To find
that the creed is false is like being roused from a frightful
dream, in which hundreds of serpents are coiled about you,
in which their eyes, gleaming with hatred, are fixed on
you, and finding the world bathed in sunshine and the
songs of birds in your ears and those you love about you.

— New York World, November 18, 1888.

WORKING GIRLS.

Question. What is your opinion of the work undertaken
by the World in behalf of the city slave girls ?

Answer. I know of nothing better for a great journal to do.
The average girl is so helpless, and the greed of the employer
is such, that unless some newspaper or some person of great
influence comes to her assistance, she is liable not simply
to be imposed upon, but to be made a slave. Girls, as a
rule, are so anxious to please, so willing to work, that they
bear almost every hardship without complaint. Nothing
is more terrible than to see the rich living on the work of
the poor. One can hardly imagine the utter heartlessness
of a man who stands between the wholesale manufacturer
and the wretched women who make their living — or rather,
retard their death — by the needle. How a human being

INTERVIEWS. 423

can consent to live on this profit, stolen from poverty, is
beyond my imagination. These men, when known, will be
regarded as hyenas and jackals. They are like the wild
beasts which follow herds of cattle for the purpose of de
vouring those that are injured or those that have fallen by
the wayside from weakness.

Question. What effect has unlimited immigration on the
wages of women ?

Answer. If our country were overpopulated, the effect of
immigration would be to lessen wages, for the reason that
the working people of Europe are used to lower wages, and
have been in the habit of practicing an economy unknown
to us. But this country is not overpopulated. There is
plenty of room for several hundred millions more. Wages,
however, are too low in the United States. The general
tendency is to leave the question of labor to what is called
the law of supply and demand. My hope is that in time
we shall become civilized enough to know that there is a
higher law, or rather a higher meaning in the law of sup
ply and demand, than is now perceived. Year after year
what are called the necessaries of life increase. Many
things now regarded as necessaries were formerly looked
upon as luxuries. So, as man becomes civilized, he in
creases what may be called the necessities of his life.
When perfectly civilized, one of the necessities of his life
will be that the lives of others shall be of some value to
them. A good man is not happy so long as he knows that
other good men and women suffer for raiment and for food,
and have no roof but the sky, no home but the highway.
Consequently what is called the law of supply and demand
will then have a much larger meaning.

In nature everything lives upon something else. Life
feeds upon life. Something is lying in wait for something
else, and even the victim is weaving a web or crouching
for some other victim, and the other victim is in the same

424 INTERVIEWS.

business — watching for vsomething else. The same is true
in the human world — people are living on each other; the
cunning obtain the property of the simple ; wealth picks
the pockets of poverty ; success is a highwayman leaping
from the hedge. The rich combine, the poor are unorgan
ized, without the means to act in concert, and for that rea
son become the prey of combinations and trusts. The
great questions are : Will man ever be sufficiently civilized
to be honest ? Will the time ever come when it can truth
fully be said that right is might ? The lives of millions of
people are not worth living, because of their ignorance
and poverty, and the lives of millions of others are not
worth living, on account of their wealth and selfishness.
The palace without justice, without charity, is as terrible
as the hovel without food.

Question. What effect has the woman's suffrage movement
had on the breadwinners of the country ?

Answer. I think the women who have been engaged in
the struggle for equal rights have done good for women in
the direction of obtaining equal wages for equal work.
There has also been for many years a tendency among
women in our country to become independent — a desire to
make their own living — to win their own bread. So many
husbands are utterly useless, or worse, that many women
hardly feel justified in depending entirely on a husband for
the future. They feel somewhat safer to know how to do
something and earn a little money themselves. If men were
what they ought to be, few women would be allowed to labor
— that is to say, to toil. It should be the ambition of every
healthy and intelligent man to take care of, to support, to
make happy, some woman. As long as women bear the
burdens of the world, the human race can never attain any-
thipg like a splendid civilization. There will be no great
generation of men until there has been a great generation
of women. For iny part, I am glad to hear this question

INTERVIEWS. 425

discussed — glad to know that thousands of women take
some interest in the fortunes and in the misfortunes of their
sisters.

The question of wages for women is a thousand times
more important than sending missionaries to China or to
India. There is plenty for missionaries to do here. And
by missionaries I do not mean gentlemen and ladies who dis
tribute tracts or quote Scripture to people out of work. If
we are to better the condition of men and women we must
change their surroundings. The tenement house breeds a
moral pestilence. There can be in these houses no home, >
no fireside, no family, for the reason that there is no privacy,
no walls between them and the rest of the world. There is
no sacredness, no feeling, "this is ours."

Question. Might not the rich do much ?

Answer. It would be hard to overestimate the good that
might be done by the millionaires if they would turn their
attention to sending thousands and thousands into the
country or to building them homes miles from the city,
where they could have something like privacy, where the
family relations could be kept with some sacredness.
Think of the " homes " in which thousands and thousands
of young girls are reared in our large cities. Think of what
they see and what they hear ; of what they come in contact
with. How is it possible for the virtues to grow in the
damp and darkened basements ? Can we expect that love
and chastity and all that is sweet and gentle will be pro
duced in these surroundings, in cellars and garrets, in
poverty and dirt ? The surroundings must be changed.

Question. Are the fathers and brothers blameless who
allow young girls to make coats, cloaks and vests in an at
mosphere poisoned by the ignorant and low-bred ?

Answer. The same causes now brutalizing girls brutalize
their fathers and their brothers, and the same causes
brutalize the ignorant and low-lived that poison the air in

426 INTERVIEWS.

which these girls are made to work. It is hard to pick out
one man and say that he is to blame, or one woman and
say that the fault is hers. We must go back of all this.
In my opinion, society raises its own failures, its own
criminals, its own wretches of every sort and kind. Great
pains are taken to raise these crops. The seeds, it may be,
were sown thousands of years ago, but they were sown, and
the present is the necessary child of all the past. If the
future is to differ from the present, the seeds must now be
sown. It is not simply a question of charity, or a ques
tion of good nature, or a question of what we call justice
— it is a question of intelligence. In the first place, I sup
pose that it is the duty of every human being to support
himself — first, that he may not become a burden upon others,
and second, that he may help others. I think all people
should be taught never, under any circumstances, if by
any possibility they can avoid it, to become a burden.
Every one should be taught the nobility of labor, the hero
ism and splendor of honest effort. As long as it is con
sidered disgraceful to labor, or aristocratic not to labor, the
world will be filled with idleness and crime, and with every
possible moral deformity.

Question. Has the public school system anything to do
with the army of pupils who, after six years of study,
willingly accept the injustice and hardship imposed by
capital ?

Answer. The great trouble with the public school is that
many things are taught that are of no immediate use. I
believe in manual training schools. I believe in the kin
dergarten system. Every person ought to be taught how to do
something — ought to be taught the use of their hands. They
should endeavor to put in palpable form the ideas that they
gain. Such an education gives them a confidence in them
selves, a confidence in the future — gives them a spirit and
feeling of independence that they do not now have. Men go

INTERVIEWS. 437

through college studying for many years, and when gradu
ated have not the slightest conception of how to make a
living in any department of human effort. Thousands of
them are to-day doing manual labor and doing it very
poorly, whereas, if they had been taught the use of tools,
the use of their hands, they would derive a certain pleasure
from their work. It is splendid to do anything well. One
can be just as poetic working with iron and wood as work
ing with words and colors.

Question. What ought to be done, or what is to be the
end?

Answer. The great thing is for the people to know the
facts. There are thousands and millions of splendid and
sympathetic people who would willingly help, if they only
knew ; but they go through the world in such a way that
they know but little of it. They go to their place of
business ; they stay in their offices for a few hours ; they
go home ; they spend the evening there or at a club ; they
come in contact with the well-to-do, with the successful,
with the satisfied, and they know nothing of the thousands
and millions on every side. They have not the least idea
how the world lives, how it works, how it suffers. They
read, of course, now and then, some paragraph in which
the misfortune of some wretch is set forth, but the wretch
is a kind of steel engraving, an unreal shadow, a some
thing utterly unlike themselves. The real facts should be
brought home, the sympathies of men awakened, and
awakened to such a degree that they will go and see
how these people live, see how they work, see how they
suffer.

Question. Does exposure do any good ?

Answer. I hope that The World will keep on. I hope that
it will expose every horror that it can, connected with the
robbery of poor and helpless girls, and I hope that it will
publish the names of all the robbers it can find, and the

428 INTERVIEWS.

wretches who oppress the poor and who live upon the
misfortunes of women.

The crosses of this world are mostly born by wives, by
mothers and by daughters. Their brows are pierced by
thorns. They shed the bitterest tears. They live and suffer
and die for others. It is almost enough to make one insane
to think of what woman, in the years of savagery and civil
ization, has suffered. Think of the anxiety and agony of
motherhood. Maternity is the most pathetic fact in the
universe. Think how helpless girls are. Think of the
thorns in the paths they walk — of the trials, the tempta
tions, the want, the misfortune, the dangers and anxieties
that fill their days and nights. Every true man will sym
pathize with woman, and will do all in his power to lighten
her burdens and increase the sunshine of her life.

Question. Is there any remedy ?

Answer. I have always wondered that the great corpora
tions have made no provisions for their old and worn out
employes. It seems to me that not only great railway
companies, but great manufacturing corporations, ought to
provide for their workmen Many of them are worn out,
unable longer to work, and they are thrown aside like old
clothes. They find their way to the poorhouses or die in
tenements by the roadside. This seems almost infinitely
heartless. Men of great wealth, engaged in manufacturing,
instead of giving five hundred thousand dollars for a
library, or a million dollars for a college, ought to put this
money aside, invest it in bonds of the Government, and the
interest ought to be used in taking care of the old, of the
helpless, of those who meet with accidents in their work.
Under our laws, if an employe is caught in a wheel or in a
band, and his arm or leg is torn off, he is left to the charity
of the community, whereas the profits of the business ought
to support him in his old age. If employes had this feel
ing — that they were not simply working for that day, not

INTERVIEWS. 429

simply working while they have health and strength, but
laying aside a little sunshine for the winter of age — if they
only felt that they, by their labor, were creating a fireside
in front of which their age and helplessness could sit, the
feeling between employed and employers would be a thou
sand times better. On the great railways very few people
know the number of the injured, of those who lose their
hands or feet, of those who contract diseases riding on the
tops of freight trains in snow and sleet and storm ; and yet,
when these men become old and helpless through accident,
they are left to shift for themselves. The company is im
mortal, but the employes become helpless. Now, it seems
to me that a certain per cent, should be laid aside, so that
every brakeman and conductor could feel that he was pro
viding for himself, as well as for his fellow-workmen, so
that when the dark days came there would be a little
light.

The men of wealth, the men who control these great
corporations — these great mills — give millions away in
ostentatious charity. They send missionaries to foreign
lands. They endow schools and universities and allow the
men who earned the surplus to die in want. I believe in
no charity that is founded on robbery. I have no admira
tion for generous highwaymen or extravagant pirates. At
the foundation of charity should be justice. Let these
men whom others have made wealthy give something to
the workmen — something to those who created their for
tunes. This would be one step in the right direction.
Do not let it be regarded as charity — let it be regarded as

justice. — New York World^ December 2, 1888.

PROTECTION FOR AMERICAN ACTORS.

Question, It is reported that you have been retained as
counsel for the Actors" Order of Friendship — the Edwin
Forrest Lodge of New York, and the Shakespeare Lodge of
Philadelphia — for the purpose of securing the necessary
legislation to protect American actors — is that so?

Answer. Yes, I have been retained for that purpose, and
the object is simply that American actors may be put upon
an equal footing with Americans engaged in other employ
ments. There is a law now which prevents contractors
going abroad and employing mechanics or skilled workmen
and bringing them to this country to take the places of
our citizens.

No one objects to the English, German and French
mechanics coming with their wives and children to this
country and making their homes here. Our ports are open,
and have been since the foundation of the Government.
Wages are somewhat higher in this country than in any
other, and the man who really settles here, who becomes, or
intends to become an American citizen, will demand
American wages. But if a manufacturer goes to Europe,
he can make a contract there and bring hundreds and
thousands of mechanics to this country who will work for
less wages than the American, and a law was passed to
prevent the American manufacturer, who was protected by
a tariff, from burning the laborer's candle at both ends.
That is to say, we do not wish to give him the American
price, by means of a tariff, and then allow him to go to
Europe and import his labor at the European price.

In the law, actors were excepted, and we now find that
managers are bringing entire companies from the old

<430)

INTERVIEWS. 431

country, making contracts with them there, and getting
them at much lower prices than they would have to pay
for American actors.

No one objects to a foreign actor coming here for employ
ment, but we do not want an American manager to go
there, and employ him to act here. No one objects to the
importation of a star. We wish to see and hear the best
actors in the world. But the rest of the company — the sup
port — should be engaged in the United States, if the star
speaks English.

I see that it is contended over in England, that English
actors are monopolizing the American stage because they
speak English, while the average American actor does not.
The real reason is that the English actor works for less
money — he is the cheaper article. Certainly no one will
accuse the average English actor of speaking English. The
hemming and hawing, the aristocratic stutter, the dropping
of h's and picking them up at the wrong time, have never
been popular in the United States, except by way of carica
ture. Nothing is more absurd than to take the ground
that the English actors are superior to the American. I
know of no English actor who can for a moment be com
pared with Joseph Jefferson, or with Edwin Booth, or with
Lawrence Barrett, or with Denmau Thompson, and I could
easily name others.

If English actors are so much better than American, how
is it that an American star is supported by the English ?
Mary Anderson is certainly an American actress, and she is
supported by English actors. Is it possible that the
superior support the inferior ? I do not believe that En
gland has her equal as an actress. Her Hermione is won
derful, and the appeal to Apollo sublime. In Perdita she
"takes the winds of March with beauty." Where is an
actress on the English stage the superior of Julia Marlowe
in genius, in originality, in naturalness?

432 INTERVIEWS.

Is there any better Mrs. Malaprop than Mrs. Drew, and
better Sir Anthony than John Gilbert ? No one denies that
the English actors and actresses are great. No one will
deny that the plays of Shakespeare are the greatest that
have been produced, and no one wishes in any way to be
little the genius of the English people.

In this country the average person speaks fairly good
English, and you will find substantially the same English
spoken in most of the country ; whereas in England there is
a different dialect in almost every county, and most of the
English people .speak the language as if it was not their
native tongue. I think it will be admitted that the English
write a good deal better than they speak, and that their
pronunciation is not altogether perfect.

These things, however, are not worth speaking of. There
is no absolute standard. They speak in the way that is
natural to them, and we in the way that is natural to us.
This difference furnishes no foundation for a claim of
general superiority. The English actors are not brought
here on account of their excellence, but on account of their
cheapness. It requires no great ability to play the minor
parts, or the leading roles in some plays, for that matter.
And yet acting is a business, a profession, a means of gain
ing bread.

We protect our mechanics and makers of locomotives and
of all other articles. Why should we not protect, by the same
means, the actor ? You may say that we can get along
without actors. So we can get along without painters,
without sculptors and without poets. But a nation that
gets along without these people of genius amounts to but
little. We can do without music, without players and with
out composers ; but when we take art and poetry and music
and the theatre out of the world, it becomes an exceed
ingly dull place.

Actors are protected and cared for in proportion that

INTERVIEWS. 433

people are civilized. If the people are intelligent, educated,
and have imaginations, they enjoy the world of the stage,
the creations of poets, and they are thrilled by great music,
and, as a consequence, respect the dramatist, the actor and
the musician.

Question. It is claimed that an amendment to the law,
such as is desired, will interfere with the growth of art ?

Answer. No one is endeavoring to keep stars from this
country. If they have American support, and the stars
really know anything, the American actors will get the
benefit. If they bring their support with them, the Ameri
can actor is not particularly benefited, and the star, when
the season is over, takes his art and his money with him.

Managers who insist on employing foreign support are
not sacrificing anything for art. Their object is to make
money. They care nothing for the American actor — noth
ing for the American drama. They look for the receipts.
It is the sheerest cant to pretend that they are endeavoring
to protect art.

On the 26th of February, 1885, a law was passed making
it unlawful "for any person, company, partnership or cor
poration, in any manner whatsoever, to prepay the trans
portation, or in any way assist or encourage the importa
tion or emigration of any alien or aliens into the United
States, under contract or agreement, parol or special,
previous to the importation or emigration of such aliens to
perform labor or services of any kind in the United States."

By this act it was provided that its provisions should not
apply to professional actors, artists, lecturers or singers, in
regard to persons employed strictly as personal or domestic
servants. The object now in view is so to amend the law
that its provisions shall apply to all actors except stars.

Question. In this connection there has been so much said
about the art of acting — what is your idea as to that art ?

Answer. Above all things, in acting, there must be pro-

434 INTERVIEWS.

portion. There are no miracles in art or nature. All that
is done — every inflection and gesture — must be in perfect
harmony with the circumstances. Sensationalism is based
on deformity, and bears the same relation to proportion that
caricature does to likeness.

The stream that flows even with its banks, making the
meadows green, delights us ever ; the one that overflows
surprises for a moment. But we do not want a succession
of floods.

In acting there must be natural growth, not sudden
climax. The atmosphere of the situation, the relation sus
tained to others, should produce the emotions. Nothing
should be strained. Beneath domes there should be build
ings, and buildings should have foundations. There must
be growth. There should be the bud, the leaf, the flower,
in natural sequence. There must be no leap from naked
branches to the perfect fruit.

Most actors depend on climax — they save themselves for
the supreme explosion. The scene opens with a slow match
and ends when the spark reaches the dynamite. So, most
authors fill the first act with contradictions and the last with
explanations. Plots and counter-plots, violence and ve
hemence, perfect saints and perfect villains — that is to say,
monsters, impelled by improbable motives, meet upon the
stage, where they are pushed and pulled for the sake of the
situation, and where everything is so managed that the fire
reaches the powder and the explosion is the climax.

There is neither -time, nor climate, nor soil, in which the
emotions and intentions may grow. No land is plowed, no
seed is sowed, no rain falls, no light glows — the events are
all orphans.

No one would enjoy a sudden sunset — we want the clouds
of gold that float in the azure sea. No one would enjoy a
sudden sunrise — we are in love with the morning star, with
the dawn that modestly heralds the day and draws aside,

INTERVIEWS. 435

with timid hands, the curtains of the night. In other words,
we want sequence, proportion, logic, beauty.

There are several actors in this country who are in perfect
accord with nature — who appear to make no effort — whose
acting seems to give them joy and rest. We do well what
we do easily. It is a great mistake to exhaust yourself,
instead of the subject. All great actors "fill the stage" be
cause they hold the attention. You see them and nothing
else.

Question. Speaking of American actors, Colonel, I believe
you are greatly interested in the playing of Miss Marlowe,
and have given your opinion of her as Parthenia ; what do
you think of her Julia and Viola?

Answer, A little while ago I saw Miss Marlowe as Julia,
in "The Hunchback." We must remember the limitations
of the play. Nothing can excel the simplicity, the joyous
content, of the first scene. Nothing could be more natural
than the excitement produced by the idea of leaving what
you feel to be simple and yet good, for what you think is
magnificent, brilliant and intoxicating. It is only in youth
that we are willing to make this exchange. One does not
see so clearly in the morning of life when the sun shines in
his eyes. In the afternoon, when the sun is behind him, he
sees better — he is no longer dazzled. In old age we are not
only willing, but anxious, to exchange wealth and fame and
glory and magnificence, for simplicity. All the palaces are
nothing compared with our little cabin, and all the flowers
of the world are naught to the wild rose that climbs and
blossoms by the lowly window of content.

Happiness dwells in the valleys with the shadows.

The moment Julia is brought in contact with wealth, she
longs for the simple — for the true love of one true man.
Wealth and station are mockeries. These feelings, these
emotions, Miss Marlowe rendered not only with look and
voice and gesture, but with every pose of her body ; and

436 INTERVIEWS.

when assured that her nuptials with the Earl could be
avoided, the only question in her mind was as to the abso
lute preservation of her honor — not simply in fact, but in
appearance, so that even hatred could not see a speck upon
the shining shield of her perfect truth. In this scene she
was perfect — everything was forgotten except the desire to
be absolutely true.

So in the scene with Master Walter, when he upbraids her
for forgetting that she is about to meet her father, when
excusing her forgetfulness on the ground that he has been
to her a father. Nothing could exceed the delicacy and
tenderness of this passage. Every attitude expressed love,
gentleness, and a devotion even unto death. One felt that
there could be no love left for the father she expected to
meet — Master Walter had it all.

A greater Julia was never on the stage — one in whom so
much passion mingled with so much purity. Miss Marlowe
never "o'ersteps the modesty of nature." She maintains
proportion. The river of her art flows even with the banks.

In Viola, we must remember the character — a girl just
rescued from the sea — disguised as a boy — employed by the
Duke, whom she instantly loves — sent as his messenger to
woo another for him — Olivia enamored of the messenger —
forced to a duel — mistaken for her brother by the Captain,
and her brother taken for herself by Olivia — and yet, in the
midst of these complications and disguises, she remains a
pure and perfect girl — these circumstances having no more
real effect upon her passionate and subtle self than clouds
on stars.

When Malvolio follows and returns the ring the whole
truth flashes on her. She is in love with Orsino — this she
knows. Olivia, she believes, is in love with her. The edge
of the situation, the dawn of this entanglement, excites her
mirth. In this scene she becomes charming — an impersona
tion of Spring. Her laughter is as natural and musical as

INTERVIEWS. 437

the song of a brook. So, in the scene with Olivia in which
she cries, "Make me a willow cabin at your gate! "she is
the embodiment of grace, and her voice is as musical as the
words, and as rich in tone as they are in thought.

In the duel with Sir Andrew she shows the difference be
tween the delicacy of woman and the cowardice of man.
She does the little that she can, not for her own sake, but
for the sake of her disguise — she feels that she owes some
thing to her clothes.

But I have said enough about this actress to give you an
idea of one who is destined to stand first in her profession.

We will now come back to the real question. I am in
favor of protecting the American actor. I regard the
theatre as the civilizer of man. All the arts unite upon the
stage, and the genius of the race has been lavished on this

mimic World. — New York Star, December 23, 1888.

LIBERALS AND LIBERALISM.

Question. What do you think of the prospects of Liberal
ism in this country ?

Answer. The prospects of Liberalism are precisely the
same as the prospects of civilization — that is to say, of
progress. As the people become educated, they become
liberal. Bigotry is the provincialism of the mind. Men
are bigoted who are not acquainted with the thoughts of
others. They have been taught one thing, and have been
made to believe that their little mental horizon is the cir
cumference of all knowledge. The bigot lives in an igno
rant village, surrounded by ignorant neighbors. This is
the honest bigot. The dishonest bigot may know better,
but he remains a bigot because his salary depends upon it.
A bigot is like a country that has had no commerce with any
other. He imagines that in his little head there is every
thing of value. When a man becomes an intellectual ex
plorer, an intellectual traveler, he begins to widen, to grow

INTERVIEWS.

liberal. He finds that the ideas of others are as good as,
and often better than, his own. The habits and customs of
other people throw light on his own, and by this light he
is enabled to discover at least some of his own mistakes.
Now the world has become acquainted. A few years ago,
a man knew something of the doctrines of his own church.
Now he knows the creeds of others, and not only so, but
ae has examined to some extent the religions of other
nations. He finds in other creeds all the excellencies that
are in his own, and most of the mistakes. In this way he
learns that all creeds have been produced by men, and that
their differences have been accounted for by race, climate,
heredity — that is to say, by a difference in circumstances.
So we now know that the cause of Liberalism is the cause
of civilization. Unless the race is to be a failure, the cause
of Liberalism must succeed. Consequently, I have the
same faith in that cause that I have in the human race.

Question. Where are the most Liberals, and in what sec
tion of the country is the best work for Liberalism being
done?

Answer. The most Liberals are in the most intelligent sec
tion of the United States. Where people think the most,
you will find the most Liberals; where people think the
least, you will find the most bigots. Bigotry is produced
by feeling — Liberalism by thinking — that is to say, the one
is a prejudice, the other a principle. Every geologist,
every astronomer, every scientist, is doing a noble work
for Liberalism. Every man who finds a fact, and demon
strates it, is doing work for the cause. All the literature
of our time that is worth reading is on the liberal side.
All the fiction that really interests the human mind is with
us. No one cares to read the old theological works.
Essays written by professors of theological colleges are re
garded, even by Christians, with a kind of charitable con
tempt. When any demonstration of science is attacked by

INTERVIEWS. 439

a creed, or a passage of Scripture, all the intelligent smile.
For these reasons I think that the best work for Lib
eralism is being done where the best work for science is
being done — where the best work for man is being accom
plished. Every legislator that assists in the repeal of
theological laws is doing a great work for Liberalism.

Question. In your opinion, what relation do Liberalism
and Prohibition bear to each other ?

Answer. I do not think they have anything to do with
each other. They have nothing in common except this :
The Prohibitionists, I presume, are endeavoring to do
what they can for temperance; so all intelligent Liberals
are doing what they can for the cause of temperance. The
Prohibitionist endeavors to accomplish his object by legis
lation — the Liberalist by education, by civilization, by
example, by persuasion. The method of the Liberalist is
good, that of the Prohibitionist chimerical and fanatical.

Question. Do you think that Liberals should unuertake
a reform in the marriage and divorce laws and relations ?

Answer. I think that Liberals should do all in their
power to induce people to regard marriage and divorce in
a sensible light, and without the slightest reference to any
theological ideas. They should use their influence to the
end that marriage shall be considered as a contract — the
highest and holiest that men and women can make. And
they should also use their influence to have the laws of
divorce based on this fundamental idea, — that marriage is
a contract. All should be done that can be done by law
to uphold the sacredness of this relation. All should be
done that can be done to imp iss upon the minds of all
men and all women their duty to discharge all the obliga
tions of the marriage contract faithfully and cheerfully. I
do not believe that it is to the interest of the State or of
the Nation, that people should be compelled to live together
who hate each other, or that a woman should be bound to

440 INTERVIEWS.

a man who has been false and who refuses to fulfill the
contract of marriage. I do not believe that any man
should call upon the police, or upon the creeds, or upon
the church, to compel his wife to remain under his roof,
or to compel a woman against her will to become the
mother of his children. In other words, Liberals should
endeavor to civilize mankind, and when men and women
are civilized, the marriage question, and the divorce ques
tion, will be settled.

Question. Should Liberals vote on Liberal issues ?

Answer. I think that, other things being anywhere near
equal, Liberals should vote for men who believe in liberty,
men who believe in giving to others the rights they claim
for themselves — that is to say, for civilized men, for men
of some breadth of mind. Liberals should do what they
can to do away with all the theological absurdities.

Question. Can, or ought, the Liberals and Spiritualists
to unite ?

Answer. All people should unite where they have ob
jects in common. They can vote together, and act to
gether, without believing the same on all points. A Lib
eral is not necessarily a Spiritualist, and a Spiritualist is
not necessarily a Liberal. If Spiritualists wish to liberal
ize the Government, certainly Liberals would be glad of
their assistance, and if Spiritualists take any step in the
direction of freedom, the Liberals should stand by them
to that extent.

Question. Which is the more dangerous to American in
stitutions — the National Reform Association (God-in-the-
Constitution party) or the Roman Catholic Church?

Answer. The Association and the Catholic Church are
dangerous according to their power. The Catholic Church
has far more power than the Reform Association, and is
consequently far more dangerous. The God-in-the-Con-
stitution association is weak, fanatical, stupid, and absurd.

INTERVIEWS. 441

What God are we to have in the Constitution ? Whose
God ? If we should agree to-morrow to put God in the
Constitution, the question would then be : Which God ?
On that question, the religious world would fall out. In
that direction there is no danger. But the Roman Catholic
Church is the enemy of intellectual liberty. It is the enemy
of investigation. It is the enemy of free schools. That
church always has been, always will be, the enemy of free
dom. It works in the dark. When in a minority it is
humility itself — when in power it is the impersonation of
arrogance. In weakness it crawls — in power it stands
erect, and compels its victims to fall upon their faces.
The most dangerous institution in this world, so far as
the intellectual liberty of man is concerned, is the
Roman Catholic Church. Next to that is the Protestant
Church.

Question. What is your opinion of the Christian religion
and the Christian Church ?

Answer. My opinion upon this subject is certainly well
known. The Christian Church is founded upon miracles —
that is to say, upon impossibilities. Of course, there is a
great deal that is good in the creeds of the churches, and
in the sermons delivered by its ministers ; but mixed with
this good is much that is evil. My principal objection to
orthodox religion is the dogma of eternal pain. Nothing
can be more infamously absurd. All civilized men should
denounce it — all women should regard it with a kind of shud
dering abhorrence. — Secular Thought^ Toronto, Canada, 1888.

POPE LEO XIII.

Question. Do you agree with the views of Pope Leo XIII.
as expressed in The Herald of last week ?

Answer. I am not personally acquainted with Leo XIII.,
but I have not the slightest idea that he loves Americans
or their country. I regard him as an enemy of intellectual
liberty. He tells us that where the church is free it will
increase, and I say to him that where others are free it will
not. The Catholic Church has increased in this country
by immigration and in no other way. Possibly the Pope
is willing to use his power for the good of the whole
people, Protestants and Catholics, and to increase their
prosperity and happiness, because by this he means that he
will use his power to make Catholics out of Protestants.

It is impossible for the Catholic Church to be in favor of
mental freedom. That church represents absolute author
ity. Its members have no right to reason — no right to ask
questions — they are called on simply to believe and to pay
their subscriptions.

Question. Do you agree with the Pope when he says that
the result of efforts which have been made to throw aside
Christianity and live without it can be seen in the present
condition of society — discontent, disorder, hatred and pro
found unhappiness ?

Answer. Undoubtedly the people in Europe who wish to
be free are discontented. Undoubtedly these efforts to have
something like justice done will bring disorder. Those in
power will hate those who are endeavoring to drive them
from their thrones. If the people now, as formerly, would
bear all burdens cheerfully placed upon their shoulders by
church and state — that is to say, if they were so enslaved
mentally that they would not even have sense enough to

14*4)

INTERVIEWS. 443

complain, then there would be what the Pope might call
" peace and happiness " — that is to say, the peace of igno
rance, and the happiness of those who are expecting pay
in another world for their agonies endured in this.

Of course, the revolutionists of Europe are not satisfied
with the Catholic religion ; neither are they satisfied with
the Protestant. Both of these religions rest upon authority.
Both discourage reason. Both say " Let him that hath ears
to hear, hear," but neither says let him that hath brains to
think, think.

Christianity has been thoroughly tried, and it is a failure.
Nearly every church has upheld slavery, not only of the
body, but of the mind. When Christian missionaries in
vade what they call a heathen country, they are followed in
a little while by merchants and traders, and in a few days
afterward by the army. The first real work is to kill the
heathen or steal their lands, or else reduce them to some
thing like slavery.

I have no confidence in the reformation of this world by
churches. Churches for the most part exist, not for this
world, but for another. They are founded upon the
supernatural, and they say: "Take no thought for the
morrow ; put your trust in your Heavenly Father and he will
take care of you." On the other hand, science says : " You
must take care of yourself, live for the world in which you
happen to be — if there is another, live for that when you get
there."

Question. What do you think of the plan to better the
condition of the workingmen, by committees headed by
bishops of the Catholic Church, in discussing their
duties ?

Answer. If the bishops wish to discuss with anybody
about duties they had better discuss with the employers,
instead of the employed. This discussion had better take
place between the clergy and the capitalist. There is no

444 INTERVIEWS.

need of discussing this question with the poor wretches who
cannot earn more than enough to keep their souls in their
bodies. If the Catholic Church has so much power, and
if it represents God on earth, let it turn its attention to
softening the hearts of capitalists, and no longer waste its
time in preaching patience to the poor slaves who are now
bearing the burdens of the world.

Question. Do you agree with the Pope that : " Sound
rules of life must be founded on religion " ?

Answer. I do not. Sound rules of life must be founded
on the experience of mankind. In other words, we must
live for this world. Why should men throw away hun
dreds and thousands of millions of dollars in building
cathedrals and churches, and paying the salaries of bishops
and priests, and cardinals and popes, and get no possible
return for all this money except a few guesses about
another world — those guesses being stated as facts — when
every pope and priest and bishop knows that no one
knows the slightest thing on the subject. Superstition is
the greatest burden borne by the industry of the world.

The nations of Europe to-day all pretend to be Christian,
yet millions of men are drilled and armed for the purpose
of killing other Christians. Each Christian nation is forti
fied to prevent other Christians from devastating their
fields. There is already a debt of about twenty-five thou
sand millions of dollars which has been incurred by Chris
tian nations, because each one is afraid of every other, and
yet all say : " It is our duty to love our enemies."

This world, in my judgment, is to be reformed through
intelligence — through development of the mind — not by
credulity, but by investigation ; not by faith in the super
natural, but by faith in the natural. The church has
passed the zenith of her power. The clergy must stand
aside. Scientists must take their places.

Question. Do you agree with the Pope in attacking the

INTERVIEWS. 445

present governments of Europe and the memories of Maz-
zini and Saffi ?

Answer. I do not. I think Mazzini was of more use to
Italy than all the popes that ever occupied the chair of St.
Peter — which, by the way, was not his chair. I have a
thousand times more regard for Mazzini, for Garibaldi, for
Cavour, than I have for any gentleman who pretends to be
the representative of God.

There is another objection I have to the Pope, and that
is that he was so scandalized when a monument was reared
in Rome to the memory of Giordano Bruno. Bruno was
murdered about two hundred and ninety years ago by the
Catholic Church, and such has been the development of
the human brain and heart that on the very spot where he
was murdered a monument rises to his memory.

But the vicar of God has remained stationary, and he
regards this mark of honor to one of the greatest and
noblest of the human race as an act of blasphemy. The
poor old man acts as if America had never been dis
covered — as if the world were still flat — and as if the
stars had been made out of little pieces left over from
the creation of the world and stuck in the sky simply to
beautify the night.

But, after all, I do not blame this Pope. He is the
victim of his surroundings. He was never married. His
heart was never softened by wife or children. He was born
that way, and, to tell you the truth, he has my sincere
sympathy. Let him talk about America and stay in Italy.

— The Herald, New York, April 22, 1890.

THE SACREDNESS OF THE SABBATH.

Question. What do you think of the sacredness of the
Sabbath ?

Answer. I think all days, all times and all seasons are
alike sacred. I think the best day in a man's life is the
day that he is truly the happiest. Every day in which
good is done to humanity is a holy day.

If I were to make a calendar of sacred days, I would put
down the days in which the greatest inventions came to
the mind of genius ; the days when scattered tribes be
came nations ; the days when good laws were passed ; the
days when bad ones were repealed ; the days when kings
were dethroned, and the people given their own; in
other words, every day in which good has been done ;
in which men and women have truly fallen in love, days in
which babes were born destined to change the civilization
of the world. These are all sacred days; days in which
men have fought for the right, suffered for the right, died
for the right ; all days in which there were heroic actions
for good. The day when slavery was abolished in the
United States is holier than any Sabbath by reason of
" divine consecration."

Of course, I care nothing about the sacredness of the
Sabbath because it was hallowed in the Old Testament, or
because on that day Jehovah is said to have rested from his
labors. A space of time cannot be sacred, any more than a
vacuum can be sacred, and it is rendered sacred by deeds
done in it, and not in and of itself.

If we should finally invent some means of traveling by
which we could go a thousand miles a day, a man could
escape Sunday all his life by traveling West. He could
start Monday, and stay Monday all the time. Or, if he
should some time get near the North Pole, he could walk

(446)

INTERVIEWS. 447

faster than the earth turns and thus beat Sunday all the
while.

Question, ftnould not the museums and art galleries be
thrown oper. to the workingmen free on Sunday ?

Answer. Undoubtedly. In all civilized countries this is
done, and * believe it would be done in New York, only it
is said ths i money has been given on condition that the
museums should be kept closed on Sundays. I have al
so heard iu. said that large sums will be withheld by certain
old people who have the prospect of dying in the near
future if the museums are open on Sunday.

This, ho\vever, seems to me a very poor and shallow
excuse. Money should not be received under such condi
tions. One of the curses of our country has been the giving
of gifts to religious colleges on certain conditions. As, for
instance, the money given to Andover by the original
founder on the condition that a certain creed be taught,
and other large amounts have been given on a like condi
tion. Now, the result of this is that the theological pro
fessor must teach what these donors have indicated, or go
out of the institution ; or — and this last "or" is generally
the trouble — teach what he does not believe, endeavoring to
get around it by giving new meanings to old words.

I think the cause of intellectual progress has been much
delayed by these conditions put in the wills of supposed
benefactors, so that after they are dead they can rule peo
ple who have the habit of being alive. In my opinion, a
corpse is a poor ruler, and after a man is dead he should
keep quiet

Of course all that he did will live, and should be allowed
to have its natural effect. If he was a great inventor or
discoverer, or if he uttered great truths, these became the
property of the world ; but he should not endeavor, after he
is dead, to rule the living by conditions attached to gifts.

All the museums and libraries should be opened, not

448 INTERVIEWS.

only to workingmen, but to all others. If to see great
paintings, great statues, wonderful works of art ; if to read
the thoughts of the greatest men — if these things tend to
the civilization of the race, then they should be put as
nearly as possible within the reach of all.

The man who works eight or ten or twelve hours a day
has no time during the six days of labor to visit libraries
or museums. Sunday is his day of leisure, his day of
recreation, and on that day he should have the privilege,
and he himself should deem it a right to visit all the public
libraries and museums, parks and gardens.

In other words, I think the laboring man should have
the same rights on Sundays, to say the least of it, that
wealthy people have on other days. The man of wealth
has leisure. He can attend these places on any day he
may desire ; but necessity being the master of the poor man,
Sunday is his one day for such a purpose. For men of
wealth to close the museums and libraries on that day,
shows that they have either a mistaken idea as to the well-
being of their fellow-men, or that they care nothing about
the rights of any except the wealthy.

Personally, I have no sort of patience with the theological
snivel and drivel about the sacredness of the Sabbath. I
do not understand why they do not accept the words of
their own Christ, namely, that " the Sabbath was made for
man, and not man for the Sabbath."

The hypocrites of Judea were great sticklers for the
Sabbath, and the orthodox Christians of New York are ex
actly the same. My own opinion is that a man who has
been at work all the week, in the dust and heat, can hardly
afford to waste his Sunday in hearing an orthodox sermon
— a sermon that gives him the cheerful intelligence that his
chances for being damned are largely in the majority. I
think it is far better for the workingman to go out with his
family in the park, into the woods, to some German garden,

INTERVIEWS. 449

where he can hear the music of Wagner, or even the
waltzes of Strauss, or to take a boat and go down to the
shore of the sea. I think that in summer a few waves of
the ocean are far more refreshing than all the orthodox
sermons of the world.

As a matter of tact, I believe the preachers leave the
city in the summer and let the Devil do his worst. Whether
it is believed that the Devil has less power in warm weather,
I do not know. But I do know that, as the mercury rises,
the anxiety about souls decreases, and the hotter New York
becomes, the cooler hell seems to be.

I want the workingman, no matter what he works at —
whether at doctoring people, or trying law suits, or run
ning for office — to have a real good time on Sunday. He,
of course, must be careful not to interfere with the rights of
others. He ought not to play draw-poker on the steps of a
church ; neither should he stone a Chinese funeral, nor go to
any excesses ; but all the week long he should have it in his
mind : Next Sunday I am going to have a good time. My
wife and I and the children are going to have a happy
time. I am going out with the girl I like ; or my young
man is going to take me to the picnic. And this thought,
and this hope, of having a good time on Sunday — of seeing
some great pictures at the Metropolitan Art Gallery — to
gether with a good many bad ones — will make work easy
and lighten the burden on the shoulders of toil.

I take a great interest, too, in the working women — par
ticularly in the working woman. I think that every
workingman should see to it that every working woman has
a good time on Sunday. I am no preacher. All I want is
that everybody should enjoy himself in a way that he will
not and does not interfere with the enjoyment of others.

It will not do to say that we cannot trust the people.
Our Government is based upon the idea that the people
can be trusted, and those \vho say that the workingmen

45O INTERVIEWS.

cannot be trusted, do not believe in Republican or Demo
cratic institutions. For one, I am perfectly willing to trust
the working people of the country. I do, every day. I
trust the engineers on the cars and steamers. I trust the
builders of houses. I trust all laboring men every day of
my life, and if the laboring people of the country were not
trustworthy — if they were malicious or dishonest — life

WOUld not be WOrth living. — The Journal^ New York, June 8,1500.

THE WEST AND SOUTH.

Question. Do you think the South will ever equal or sur
pass the West in point of prosperity ?

Answer. I do not. The West has better soil and more of
the elements of wealth. It is not liable to yellow fever ; its
rivers have better banks ; the people have more thrift, more
enterprise, more political hospitality; education is more
general ; the people are more inventive ; better traders, and,
besides all this, there is no race problem. The Southern
people are what their surroundings made them, and the
influence of slavery has not yet died out. In my judgment,
the climate of the West is superior to that of the South.
The West has good, cold winters, and they make people a
little more frugal, prudent and industrious. Winters make
good homes, cheerful firesides, and, after all, civilization
commences at the hearthstone. The South is growing, and
will continue to grow, but it will never equal the West.
The West is destined to dominate the Republic.

Question. Do you consider the new ballot-law adapted to
the needs of our system of elections. If not, in what par
ticulars does it require amendment ?

Answer. Personally I like the brave and open way. The
secret ballot lacks courage. I want people to know just
how I vote. The old viva voce way was manly and looked
well. Every American should be taught that he votes as a
sovereign — an emperor — and he should exercise the right

INTERVIEWS. 45 1

in a kingly way. But if we must have the secret ballot,
then let it be secret indeed, and let the crowd stand back
while the king votes.

Question. What do you think of the service pension
movement ?

Answer. I see that there is a great deal of talk here in
Indiana about this service pension movement. It has
always seemed to me that the pension fund has been frit
tered away. Of what use is it to give a man two or three
dollars a month ? If a man is rich why should he have any
pension ? I think it would be better to give pensions only
to the needy, and then give them enough to support them.
If the man was in the army a day or a month, and was un-
injured, and can make his own living, or has enough, why
should he have a pension ? I believe in giving to the
wounded and disabled and poor, with a liberal hand, but
not to the rich. I know that the nation could not pay the
men who fought and suffered. There is not money enough
in the world to pay the heroes for what they did and
endured — but there is money enough to keep every wounded
and diseased soldier from want. There is money enough
to fill the lives of those who gave limbs or health for the
sake of the Republic, with comfort and happiness. I would
also like to see the poor soldier taken care of whether he
was wounded or not, but I see no propriety in giving to
those who do not need. — The Journal, Indianapolis, Indiana, June 21,
1890.

THE WESTMINSTER CREED AND OTHER SUBJECTS.

Question. What do you think of the revision of the West
minster creed ?

Answer. I think that the intelligence and morality of the
age demand the revision. The Westminster creed is in
famous. It makes God an infinite monster, and men the
most miserable of beings. That creed has made millions
insane. It has furrowed countless cheeks with tears.

452 INTERVIEWS.

Under its influence the sentiments and sympathies of the
heart have withered. This creed was written by the worst
of men. The civilized Presbyterians do not believe it. The
intelligent clergyman will not preach it, and all good men
who understand it, hold it in abhorrence. But the fact is,
that it is just as good as the creed of any orthodox church.
All these creeds must be revised. Young America will not
be consoled by the doctrine of eternal pain. Yes, the creeds
must be revised or the churches will be closed.

Question. What do you think of the influence of the press
on religion ?

Answer. If you mean on orthodox religion, then I say the
press is helping to destroy it. Just to the extent that the
press is intelligent and fearless, it is and must be the enemy
of superstition. Every fact in the universe is the enemy
of every falsehood. The press furnishes food for, and ex
cites thought. This tends to the destruction of the miracu
lous and absurd. I regard the press as the friend of prog
ress and consequently the foe of orthodox religion. The
old dogmas do not make the people happy. What is called
religion is full of fear and grief. The clergy are always
talking about dying, about the grave and eternal pain.
They do not add to the sunshine of life. If they could have
their way all the birds would stop singing, the flowers
would lose their color and perfume, and all the owls would
sit on dead trees and hoot, " Broad is the road that leads to
death."

Question. If you should write your last sentence on re
ligious topics what would be your closing ?

Answer. I now in the presence of death affirm and re
affirm the truth of all that I have said against the super
stitions of the world. I would say at least that much on
the subject with my last breath.

Question. What, in your opinion, will be Browning's posi
tion in the literature of the future ?

INTERVIEWS. 453

Answer. Lower than at present. Mrs. Browning was far
greater than her husband. He never wrote anything com
parable to "Mother and Poet." Browning lacked form,
and that is as great a lack in poetry as it is in sculpture.
He was the author of some great lines, some great thoughts,
but he was obscure, uneven and was always mixing the
poetic with the common place. To me he cannot be com
pared with Shelley or Keats, or with our own Walt Whit
man. Of course poetry cannot be very well discussed.
Each man knows what he likes, what touches his heart and
what words burst into blossom, but he cannot judge for
others. After one has read Shakespeare, Burns and Byron,
and Shelley and Keats ; after he had read the " Sonnets" and
the "Daisy" and the " Prisoner of Chillon " and the "Sky
lark" and the "Ode to the Grecian Urn"— the " Flight of
the Duchess " seems a little weak. — The Post'Bxprtss, Rochester,

New York, June 23, 1890.

SHAKESPEARE AND BACON.

Question. What is your opinion of Ignatius Donnelly
as a literary man irrespective of his Baconian theory?

Answer. I know that Mr. Donnelly enjoys the reputa
tion of being a man of decided ability and that he is re
garded by many as a great orator. He is known to me
through his Baconian theory, and in that of course I have
no confidence. It is nearly as ingenious as absurd. He has
spent great time, and has devoted much curious learning to
the subject, and has at last succeeded in convincing himself
that Shakespeare claimed that which he did not write, and
that Bacon wrote that which he did not claim. But to me
the theory is without the slightest foundation.

Question. Mr. Donnelly asks : " Can you imagine the
author of such grand productions retiring to that mud
house in Stratford to live without a single copy of the
quarto that has made his name famous ? " What do you say ?

454 INTERVIEWS.

Answer. Yes; I can. Shakespeare died in 1616, and the
quarto was published in 1623, seven years after he was
dead. Under these circumstances I think Shakespeare
ought to be excused, even by those who attack him with
the greatest bitterness, for not having a copy of the book.
There is, however, another side to this. Bacon did not die
until long after the quarto was published. Did he have a
copy ? Did he mention the copy in his will ? Did he ever
mention the quarto in any letter, essay, or in any way ?
He left a library, was there a copy of the plays in it ? Did
he leave any manuscript play ? Has there ever been found
a line from any play or sonnet in his handwriting ? Bacon
left his writings, his papers, all in perfect order, but no
plays, no sonnets, said nothing about plays — claimed noth
ing in their behalf. This is the other side. Now, there is
still another thing. The edition of 1623 was published by
Shakespeare's friends, Heminge and Condell. They knew
him — had been with him for years, and they collected most
of his plays and put them in book form.

Ben Jonson wrote a preface, in which he placed Shakes
peare above all the other poets — declared that he was for
all time.

The edition of 1623 was gotten up by actors, by the
friends and associates of Shakespeare, vouched for by
dramatic writers — by those who knew him. That is
enough.

Question. How do you explain the figure : " His soul,
like Mazeppa, was lashed naked to the wild horse of every
fear and love and hate/' Mr. Donnelly does not under
stand you ?

Answer. It hardly seems necessary to explain a thing as
simple and plain as that. Men are carried away by some
fierce passion — carried away in spite of themselves as
Mazeppa was carried by the wild horse to which he was
lashed. Whether the comparison is good or bad it is at

INTERVIEWS. 455

least plain. Nothing could tempt me to call Mr. Donnelly's
veracity in question. He says that he does not understand
the sentence and I most cheerfully admit that he tells the
exact truth.

Question. Mr. Donnelly says that you said : "Where there
is genius, education seems almost unnecessary," and he de
nounces your doctrine as the most abominable doctrine ever
taught. What have you to say to that ?

Answer. In the first place, I never made the remark. In
the next place, it may be well enough to ask what education
is. Much is taught in colleges that is of no earthly use ;
much is taught that is hurtful. There are thousands of ed
ucated men who never graduated from any college or uni
versity. Every observant, thoughtful man is educating
himself as long as he lives. Men are better than books.
Observation is a great teacher. A man of talent learns
slowly. He-does not readily see the necessary relation that
one fact bears to another. A man of genius, learning one
fact, instantly sees hundreds of others. It is not necessary
for such a man to attend college. The world is his uni
versity. Every man he meets is a book — every woman a
volume — every fact a torch — and so without the aid of the
so-called schools he rises to the very top. Shakespeare was
such a man.

Question. Mr. Donnelly says that : " The biggest myth
ever on earth was Shakespeare, and that if Francis Bacon
had said to the people, I, Francis Bacon, a gentleman of
gentlemen, have been taking in secret my .share of the cop
pers and shillings taken at the door of those low playhouses,
he would have been ruined. If he had put the plays forth
simply as poetry it would have ruined his legal reputation."
What do you think of this ?

Answer. I hardly think that Shakespeare was or is a
myth. He was certainly born, married, lived in London,
belonged to a company of actors ; went back to Stratford,

456 INTERVIEWS.

where he had a family, and died. All these things do not
as a rule happen to myths. In addition to this, those who
knew him believed him to be the author of the plays.
Bacon's friends never suspected him. I do not think it would
have hurt Bacon to have admitted that he wrote " Lear" and
" Othello," and that he was getting " coppers and shillings"
to which he was justly entitled. Certainly not as much as
for him to have written this, which in fact, though not in
exact form, he did write : " I, Francis Bacon, a gentleman of
gentlemen, have been taking coppers and shillings to which
I was not entitled — but which I received as bribes while sit
ting as a judge." He has been excused for two reasons.
First, because his salary was small, and, second, because it
was the custom for judges to receive presents.

Bacon was a lawyer. He was charged with corruption —
with having taken bribes, with having sold his decisions. He
knew what the custom was and knew how small his salary
was. But he did not plead the custom in his defence. He
did not mention the smallness of .the salary. He confessed
that he was guilty — as charged. His confession was deemed
too general and he was called upon by the lords to make a
specific confession. This he did. He specified the cases
in which he had received the money and told how much, and
begged for mercy. He did not make his confession, as Mr.
Donnelly is reported to have said, to get his fine remitted.
The confession was made before the fine was imposed.

Neither do I think that the theatre in which the plays of
Shakespeare were represented could or should be called a
"low play house." The fact that " Othello," " Lear," "Ham
let," " Julius Caesar," and the other great dramas were first
played in that play house made it the greatest building in the
world. The gods themselves should have occupied seats in that
theatre, where for the first time the greatest productions of the

human mind were put Upon the Stage. — The Tribune, Minneapolis,
Minn., May 31, 1891.

GROWING OLD GRACEFULLY, AND
PRESBYTERIANISM.

Question. How have you acquired the art of growing old
gracefully ?

Answer. It is very hard to live a great while without
getting old, and it is hardly worth while to die just to keep
young. It is claimed that people with certain incomes live
longer than those who have to earn their bread. But the in
come people have a stupid kind of life, and though they may
hang on a good many years, they can hardly be said to do
much real living. The best you can say is, not that they
lived so many years, but that it took them so many years
to die. Some people imagine that regular habits prolong
life, but that depends somewhat on the habits. Only the
other day I read an article written by a physician, in which
regular habits — good ones, were declared to be quite
dangerous.

Where life is perfectly regular, all the wear and tear
comes on the same nerves — every blow falls on the same
place. Variety, even in a bad direction, is a great relief.
But living long has nothing to do with getting old grace
fully. Good nature is a great enemy of wrinkles, and
cheerfulness helps the complexion. If we could only keep
from being annoyed at little things, it would add to the
luxury of living. Great sorrows are few, and after all do
not affect us as much as the many irritating, almost noth
ings that attack from every side. The traveler is bothered
more with dust than mountains. It is a great thing to
have an object in life — something to work for and think
for. If a man thinks only about himself, his own comfort,
his own importance, he will not grow old gracefully. More

(457;

458 -INTERVIEWS.

and more his spirit, small and mean, will leave its impress
on his face, and especially in his eyes. You look at him
and feel that there is no jewel in the casket ; that a shriv
eled soul is living in a tumble-down house.

The body gets its grace from the mind. I suppose that
we are all more or less responsible for our looks. Perhaps
the thinker of great thoughts, the doer of noble deeds,
moulds his features in harmony with his life.

Probably the best medicine, the greatest beautifier in the
world, is to make somebody else happy. I have noticed
that good mothers have faces as serene as a cloudless day
in June, and the older the serener. It is a great thing to
know the relative importance of things, and those who do,
get the most out of life. Those who take an interest in
what they see, and keep their minds busy are always young.

The other day I met a blacksmith who has given much
attention to geology and fossil remains. He told me how
happy he was in his excursions. He was nearly seventy
years old, and yet he had the enthusiasm of a boy. He said
he had some very fine specimens, " but," said he, " nearly
every night I dream of finding perfect ones."

That man will keep young as long as he lives. As long
as a man lives he should study. Death alone has the right
to dismiss the school. No man can get too much knowl
edge. In that, he can have all the avarice he wants, but he
can get too much property. If the business men would stop
when they get enough, they might have a chance to grow
old gracefully. But the most of them go on and on, until,
like the old stage horse, stiff and lame, they drop dead in
the road. The intelligent, the kind, the reasonably con
tented, the courageous, the self-poised, grow old grace
fully.

Question. Are not the restraints to free religious thought
being worn away, as the world grows older, and will not
the recent attacks of the religious press and pulpit upon the

INTERVIEWS. 459

tmorthodoxy of Dr. Briggs, Rev. R. Heber Newton and the
prospective Episcopal bishop of Massachusetts, Dr. Phillips
Brooks, and others, have a tendency still further to extend
this freedom ?

Answer. Of course the world is growing somewhat wiser
— getting more sense day by day. It is amazing to me that
any human being or beings ever wrote the Presbyterian
creed. Nothing can be more absurd — more barbaric than
that creed. It makes man the sport of an infinite monster,
and yet good people, men and women of ability, who have
gained eminence in almost every department of human
eifort, stand by this creed as if it were filled with wis
dom and goodness. They really think that a good God
damns his poor ignorant children just for his own glory,
and that he sends people to perdition, not for any evil in
them, but to the praise of his glorious justice. Dr. Briggs
has been wicked enough to doubt this phase of God's
goodness, and Dr. Bridgman was heartless enough to drop
a tear in hell. Of course they have no idea of what justice
really is.

The Presbyterian General Assembly that has just ad
journed stood by Calvinism. The " Five Points " are as sharp
as ever. The members of that assembly — most of them —
find all their happiness in the "creed." They need no other
amusement. If they feel blue they read about total
depravity — and cheer up. In moments of great sorrow they
think of the tale of non-elect infants, and their hearts over
flow with a kind of holy joy.

They cannot imagine why people wish to attend the
theatre when they can read the " Confession of Faith," or
why they should feel like dancing after they do read it.

It is very sad to think of the young men and women who
have been eternally ruined by witnessing the plays of
Shakespeare, and it is also sad to think of the young people,
foolish enough to be happy, keeping time to the pulse of

460 INTERVIEWS.

music, waltzing to hell in loving pairs — all for the glory of
God, and to the praise of his glorious justice. I think, too,
of the thousands of men and women who, while listening to
the music of Wagner, have absolutely forgotten the Presby
terian creed, and who for a little while have been as happy
as if the creed had never been written. Tear down the
theatres, burn the opera houses, break all musical in
struments, and then let us go to church.

I am not at all surprised that the General Assembly took
up this progressive euchre matter. The word "progres
sive " is always obnoxious to the ministers. Euchre under
another name might go. Of course, progressive euchre is a
kind of gambling. I knew a young man, or rather heard
of him, who won at progressive euchre a silver spoon.
At first this looks like nothing, almost innocent, and yet
that spoon, gotten for nothing, sowed the seed of gambling
in that young man's brain. He became infatuated with
euchre, then with cards in general, then with draw-poker in
particular, — then into Wall Street. He is now a total
wreck, and has the impudence to say that it was all "pre
ordained." Think of the thousands and millions that are
being demoralized by games of chance, by marbles — when
they play for keeps — by billiards and croquet, by fox and
geese, authors, halma, tiddledy winks and pigs in clover. In
all these miserable games, is the infamous element of chance
— the raw material of gambling. Probably none of these
games could be played exclusively for the glory of God. I
agree with the Presbyterian General Assembly, if the creed
is true, why should anyone try to amuse himself? If there
is a hell, and all of us are going there, there should never
be another smile on the human face. We should spend
our days in sighs, our nights in tears. The world should
go insane. We find strange combinations — good men with
bad creeds, and bad men with good ones — and so the great

WOrld Stumbles along. — The Blade, Toledo, Ohio, June 4, 1891.

CREEDS.

There is a natural desire on the part of every intelligent
human being to harmonize his information — to make his
theories agree — in other words, to make what he knows, or
thinks he knows, in one department, agree and harmonize
with what he knows, or thinks he knows, in every other
department of human knowledge.

The human race has not advanced in line, neither has it
advanced in all departments with the same rapidity. It is
with the race as it is with an individual. A man may turn
his entire attention to some one subject — as, for instance, to
geology — and neglect other sciences. He may be a good
geologist, but an exceedingly poor astronomer ; or he may
know nothing of politics or of political economy. So he
may be a successful statesman and know nothing of the
ology. But if a man, successful in one direction, takes up
some other question, he is bound to use the knowledge he
has on one subject as a kind of standard to measure what
he is told on some other subject. If he is a chemist, it will
be natural for him, when studying some other question, to
use what he knows in chemistry ; that is to say, he will ex
pect to find cause and effect everywhere — succession and
resemblance. He will say : It must be in all other sciences
as in chemistry — there must be no chance. The elements have
no caprice. Iron is always the same. Gold does not change.
Prussic acid is always poison — it has no freaks. So he will
reason as to all facts in nature. He will be a believer in
the atomic integrity of all matter, in the persistence of grav
itation. Being so trained, and so convinced, his tendency
will be to weigh what is called new information in the same
scales that he has been using.

Now, for the application of this. Progress in religion is

(461)

462 INTERVIEWS.

the slowest, because man is kept back by sentimentality, by
the efforts of parents, by old associations. A thousand un
seen tendrils are twining about him that he must necessarily
break if he advances. In other departments of knowledge
inducements are held out and rewards are promised to the
one who does succeed — to the one who really does advance
— to the man who discovers new facts. But in religion,
instead of rewards being promised, threats are made. The
man is told that he must not advance ; that if he takes a
step forward, it is at the peril of his soul ; that if he thinks
and investigates, he is in danger of exciting the wrath of
God. Consequently religion has been of the slowest growth.
Now, in most departments of knowledge, man has advanced ;
and coming back to the original statement — a desire to har
monize all that we know — there is a growing desire on the
part of intelligent men to have a religion fit to keep company
with the other sciences.

Our creeds were made in times of ignorance. They
suited very well a flat world, and a God who lived in the
sky just above us and who used the lightning to destroy
his enemies. This God was regarded much as a savage re
garded the head of his tribe — as one having the right to
reward and punish. And this God, being much greater
than a chief of the tribe, could give greater rewards and in
flict greater punishments. They knew that the ordinary
chief, or the ordinary king, punished the slightest offences
with death. They also knew that these chiefs and kings
tortured their victims as long as the victims could bear the
torture. So when they described their God, they gave to
this God power to keep the tortured victim alive forever —
because they knew that the earthly chief, or the earthly
king, would prolong the life of the tortured for the sake of
increasing the agonies of the victim. In those savage days
they regarded punishment as the only means of protecting
society. In consequence of this they built heaven and hell

INTERVIEWS. 463

on an earthly plan, and they put God — that is to say the
chief, that is to say the king — on a throne like an earthly
king.

Of course, these views were all ignorant and barbaric;
but in that blessed day their geology and astronomy were on a
par with their theology. There was a harmony in all de
partments of knowledge, or rather of ignorance. Since that
time there has been a great advance made in the idea of
government — the old idea being that the right to govern
came from God to the king, and from the king to the
people. Now intelligent people believe that the source of
authority has been changed, and that all just powers of
government are derived from the consent of the governed.
So there has been a great advance in the philosophy of
punishment — in the treatment of criminals. So, too, in
all the sciences. The earth is no longer flat; heaven is not
immediately above us ; the universe has been infinitely en
larged, and we have at last found that our earth is but a
grain of sand, a speck on the great shore of the infinite.
Consequently there is a discrepancy, a discord, a contra
diction between our theology and the other sciences. Men
of intelligence feel this. Dr. Briggs concluded that a per
fectly good and intelligent God could not have created
billions of sentient beings, knowing that they were to be
eternally miserable. No man could do such a thing, had he
the power, without being infinitely malicious. Dr. Briggs
began to have a little hope for the human race — began to
think that may be God is better than the creed describes
him.

And right here it may be well enough to remark that no
one has ever been declared a heretic for thinking God bad.
Heresy has consisted in thinking God better than the church
said he was. The man who said God will damn nearly
everybody, was orthodox. The man who said God will save
everybody, was denounced as a blaspheming wretch, as one
who assailed and maligned the character of God. I can

464 INTERVIEWS.

remember when the Universalists were denounced as vehe
mently and maliciously as the Atheists are to-day.

Now, Dr. Briggs is undoubtedly an intelligent man. He
knows that nobody on the earth knows who wrote the five
books of Moses. He knows that they were not written
until hundreds of years after Moses was dead. He knows
that two or more persons were the authors of Isaiah. He
knows that David did not write to exceed three or four of
the Psalms. He knows that the Book of Job is not a Jewish
book. He knows that the Songs of Solomon were not
written by Solomon. He knows that the Book of Eccle-
siastes was written by a Freethinker. He also knows that
there is not in existence to-day — so far as anybody knows —
any of the manuscripts of the Old or New Testaments.

So about the New Testament, Dr. Briggs knows that
nobody lives who has ever seen an original manuscript, or
who ever saw anybody that did see one, or that claims to
have seen one. He knows that nobody knows who wrote
Matthew or Mark or Luke or John. He knows that John
did not write John, and that that gospel was not written
until long after John was dead. He knows that no one
knows who wrote the Hebrews. He also knows that the
Book of Revelation is an insane production. Dr. Briggs
also knows the way in which these books came to be ca
nonical, and he knows that the way was no more binding
than a resolution passed by a political convention. He
also knows that many books were left out that had for
centuries equal authority with those that were put in. He
also knows that many passages — and the very passages up
on which many churches are founded — are interpolations.
He knows that the last chapter of Mark, beginning with
the sixteenth verse to the end, is an interpolation : and he
also knows that neither Matthew nor Mark nor Luke ever
said one word about the necessity of believing on the Lord
Jesus Christ, or of believing anything — not one word about

INTERVIEWS. 465

believing the Bible or joining the church, or doing any
particular thing in the way of ceremony to insure salvation.
He knows that according to Matthew, God agreed to for
give us when we would forgive others. Consequently he
knows that there is not one particle of what is called mod
ern theology in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. He knows that
the trouble commenced in John, and that John was not
written until probably one hundred and fifty years — possi
bly two hundred years — after Christ was dead. So he also
knows that the sin against the Holy Ghost is an interpola
tion ; that " I came not to bring peace but a sword," if not
an interpolation, is an absolute contradiction. So, too, he
knows that the promise to forgive i/i heaven what the
disciples should forgive on earth, and to bind in heaven
what they should bind on earth, is an interpolation ; and
that if it is not an interpolation, it is without the slightest
sense in fact.

Knowing these things, and knowing, in addition to what
I have stated, that there are thirty thousand or forty thou
sand mistakes in the Old Testament, that there are a great
many contradictions and absurdities, that many of the laws
are cruel and infamous, and could have been made only by
a barbarous people, Dr. Briggs has concluded that, after
all, the torch that sheds the serenest and divinest light is
the human reason, and that we must investigate the Bible
as we do other books. At least, I suppose he has reached
some such conclusion. He may imagine that the pure gold
of inspiration still runs through the quartz and porphyry
of ignorance and mistake, and that all we have to do is to
extract the shining metal by some process that may be
called theological smelting ; and if so I have no fault to
find. Dr. Briggs has taken a step in advance — that is to
say, the tree is growing, and when the tree grows, the
bark splits ; when the new leaves come the old leaves are
rotting on the ground.

466 INTERVIEWS.

The Presbyterian creed is a very bad creed. It has been
the stumbling-block, not only of the head, but of the heart,
for many generations. I do not know that it is, in fact,
worse than any other orthodox creed ; but the bad features
are stated with an explicituess and emphasized with a
candor that render the creed absolutely appalling. It is
amazing to me that any man ever wrote it, or that any set
of men ever produced it. It is more amazing to me that
any human being ever believed it. It is still more amazing
that any human being ever thought it wicked not to be-
lieve it. It is more amazing still, than all the others com
bined, that any human being ever wanted it to be true.

This creed is a relic of the Middle Ages. It has in it the
malice, the malicious logic, the total depravity, the utter
heartlessness of John Calvin, and it gives me great pleasure
to say that no Presbyterian was ever as bad as his creed.
And here let me say, as I have said many times, that I do
not hate Presbyterians — because among them I count some
of my best friends — but I hate Presbyterianism. And I
cannot illustrate this any better than by saying, I do not
hate a man because he has the rheumatism, but I hate the
rheumatism because it has a man.

The Presbyterian Church is growing, and is growing be
cause, as I said at first, there is a universal tendency in the
mind of man to harmonize all that he knows or thinks he
knows. This growth may be delayed. The buds of heresy
may be kept back by the north wind of Princeton and by
the early frost called Patton. In spite of these souvenirs
of the Dark Ages, the church must continue to grow. The
theologians who regard theology as something higher than
a trade, tend toward Liberalism. Those who regard preach
ing as a business, and the inculcation of sentiment as a trade,
will stand by the lowest possible views. They will cling to
the letter and throw away the spirit. They prefer the dead
limb to a new bud or to a new leaf. They want no more

INTERVIEWS. 467

sap. They delight in the dead tree, in its unbending na
ture, and they mistake the stiffness of death for the vigor
and resistance of life.

Now, as with Dr. Briggs, so with Dr. Bridgman, although
it seems to me that he has simply jumped from the frying-
pan into the fire ; and why he should prefer the Episcopal
creed to the Baptist, is more than I can imagine. The
Episcopal creed is, in fact, just as bad as the Presbyterian.
It calmly and with unruffled brow, utters the sentence of
eternal punishment on the majority of the human race, and
the Episcopalian expects to be happy in heaven, with his
son or his daughter or his mother or wife in hell.

Dr. Bridgman will find himself exactly in the position of
the Rev. Mr. Newton, provided he expresses his thought.
But I account for the Bridgmans and for the Newtons by
the fact that there is still sympathy in the human heart,
and that there is still intelligence in the human brain. For
my part, I am glad to see this growth in the orthodox
churches, and the quicker they revise their creeds the
better.

I oppose nothing that is good in any creed — I at
tack only that which is ignorant, cruel and absurd, and I
make the attack in the interest of human liberty, and for the
sake of human happiness.

Question. What do you think of the action of the Pres
byterian General Assembly at Detroit, and what effect do
you think it will have on religious growth ?

Answer. That General Assembly was controlled by the
orthodox within the church, by the strict constructionists
and by the Calvinists ; by gentlemen who not only believe
the creed, not only believe that a vast majority of people
are going to hell, but are really glad of it ; by gentlemen
who, when they feel a little blue, read about total depravity
to cheer up, and when they think of the mercy of God as
exhibited in their salvation, and the justice of God as

468 INTERVIEWS.

illustrated by the damnation of others, their hearts burst
into a kind of efflorescence of joy.

These gentlemen are opposed to all kinds of amusements
except reading the Bible, the Confession of Faith, and the
creed, and listening to Presbyterian sermons and prayers.
All these things they regard as the food of cheerfulness.
They warn the elect against theatres and operas, dancing
and games of chance.

Well, if their doctrine is true, there ought to be no
theatres, except exhibitions of hell ; there ought to be no
operas, except where the music is a succession of wails for
the misfortunes of man. If their doctrine is true, I do not
see how any human being could ever smile again — I do not
see how a mother could welcome her babe ; everything in
nature would become hateful ; flowers and sunshine would
simply tell us of our fate.

My doctrine is exactly the opposite of this. Let us
enjoy ourselves every moment that we can. The love of
the dramatic is universal. The stage has not simply
amused, but it has elevated mankind. The greatest genius
of our world poured the treasures of his soul into the drama.
I do not believe that any girl can be corrupted, or that any
man can be injured, by becoming acquainted with Isabella
or Miranda or Juliet or Imogen, or any of the great heroines
of Shakespeare.

So I regard the opera as one of the great civilizers. No
one can listen to the symphonies of Beethoven, or the music
of Schubert, without receiving a benefit. And no one can
hear the operas of Wagner without feeling that he has been
ennobled and refined.

Why is it the Presbyterians are so opposed to music in this
world, and yet expect to have so much in heaven ? Is not
music just as demoralizing in the sky as on the earth, and
does anybody believe that Abraham or Isaac or Jacob, ever
played any music comparable to Wagner ?

INTERVIEWS. 469

Why should we postpone our joy to another world?
Thousands of people take great pleasure in dancing, and I
say let them dance. Dancing is better than weeping and
wailing over a theology born of ignorance and supersti
tion.

And so with games of chance. There is a certain pleasure
in playing games, and the pleasure is of the most innocent
character. Let all these games be played at home and
children will not prefer the saloon to the society of their
parents. I believe in cards and billiards, and would believe
in progressive euchre, were it more of a game — the great
objection to it is its lack of complexity. My idea is to get
what little happiness you can out of this life, and to enjoy
all sunshine that breaks through the clouds of misfortune.
Life is poor enough at best. No one should fail to pick up
every jewel of joy that can be found in his path. Every
one should be as happy as he can, provided he is not happy
at the expense of another, and no person rightly constituted
can be happy at the expense of another.

So let us get all we can of good between the cradle and
the grave ; all that we can of the truly dramatic ; all that we
can of music ; all that we can of art ; all that we can of en
joyment ; and if, when death comes, that is the end, we
have at least made the best of this life ; and if there be
another life, let us make the best of that.

I am doing what little I can to hasten the coming of the
day when the human race will enjoy liberty — not simply of
body, but liberty of mind. And by liberty of mind I mean
freedom from superstition, and added to that, the intelli
gence to find out the conditions of happiness; and added to
that, the wisdom to live in accordance with those conditions

— The Morning Advertiser^ New York, June 12, 1891

THE TENDENCY OF MODERN THOUGHT.

Question. Do you regard the Briggs trial as any evidence
of the growth of Liberalism in the church itself?

Answer. When men get together, and make what they
call a creed, the supposition is that they then say as nearly
as possible what they mean and what they believe. A
written creed, of necessity, remains substantially the same.
In a few years this creed ceases to give exactly the new
shade of thought. Then begin two processes, one of de
struction and the other of preservation. In every church,
as in every party, and as you may say in every corporation,
there are two wings — one progressive, the other conserva
tive. In the church there will be a few, and they will
represent the real intelligence of the church, who become
dissatisfied with the creed, and who at first satisfy them
selves by giving new meanings to old words. On the other
hand, the conservative party appeals to emotions, to
memories, and to the experiences of their fellow-members,
for the purpose of upholding the old dogmas and the old
ideas ; so that each creed is like a crumbling castle. The
conservatives plant ivy and other vines, hoping that their
leaves will hide the cracks and erosions of time; but the
thoughtful see beyond these leaves and are satisfied that
the structure itself is in process of decay, and that no
amount of ivy can restore the crumbling stones.

The old Presbyterian creed, when it was first formulated,
satisfied a certain religious intellect. At that time people
were not very merciful. They had no clear conceptions of
justice. Their lives were for the most part hard; most of
them suffered the pains and pangs of poverty ; nearly all
lived in tyrannical governments and were the sport of
nobles and kings. Their idea of God was born of their

U70)

INTERVIEWS. 471

surroundings. God, to them, was an infinite king who de-
delighted in exhibitions of power. At any rate, their
minds were so constructed that they conceived of an infinite
being who, billions of years before the world was, made up
his mind as to whom he would save and whom he would
damn. He not only made up his mind as to the number he
would save, and the number that should be lost, but he
saved and damned without the slightest reference to the
character of the individual. They believed then, and some
pretend to believe still, that God damns a man not because
he is bad, and that he saves a man not because he is good,
but simply for the purpose of self-glorification as an exhibi
tion of his eternal justice. It would be impossible to con
ceive of any creed more horrible than that of the Presby
terians. Although I admit — and I not only admit but I
assert — that the creeds of all orthodox Christians are sub
stantially the same, the Presbyterian creed says plainly
what it means. There is no hesitation, no evasion. The
horrible truth, so-called, is stated in the clearest possible
language. One would think after reading this creed, that
the men who made it not only believed it, but were really
glad it was true.

Ideas of justice, of the use of power, of the use of mercy,
have greatly changed in the last century. We are begin
ning dimly to see that each man is the result of an infinite
number of conditions, of an infinite number of facts, most of
which existed before he was born. We are beginning
dimly to see that while reason is a pilot, each soul navigates
the mysterious sea filled with tides and unknown currents
set in motion by ancestors long since dust. We are begin
ning to see that defects of mind are transmitted precisely
the same as defects of body, and in my judgment, the time
is coming when we shall no more think of punishing a man
for larceny than for having the consumption. We shall
know that the thief is a necessary and natural result of

472 . INTERVIEWS.

conditions, preparing, you may say, the field of the world
for the growth of man. We shall no longer depend upon
accident and ignorance and providence. We shall depend
upon intelligence and science.

The Presbyterian creed is no longer in harmony with the
average sense of man. It shocks the average mind. It
seems too monstrous to be true ; too horrible to find a lodg
ment in the mind of the civilized man. The Presbyterian
minister who thinks, is giving new meanings to the old
words. The Presbyterian minister who feels, also gives
new meanings to the old words. Only those who neither
think nor feel remain orthodox.

For many years the Christian world has been engaged in
examining the religions of other peoples, and the Christian
scholars have had but little trouble in demonstrating the
origin of Mohammedanism and Buddhism and all other
isms except ours. After having examined other religions
in the light of science, it occurred to some of our theolo
gians to examine their own doctrine in the same way, and
the result has been exactly the same in both cases. Dr.
Briggs, as I believe, is a man of education. He is un
doubtedly familiar with other religions, and has, to some
extent at least, made himself familiar with the sacred books
of other people. Dr. Briggs knows that no human being
knows who wrote a line of the Old Testament. He knows
as well as he can know anything, for instance, that Moses
never wrote one word of the books attributed to him. He
knows also that the book of Genesis was made by putting
two or three stories together. He also knows that it is not
the oldest story, but was borrowed. He knows that in this
book of Genesis there is not one word adapted to make a
human being better, or to shed the slightest light on human
conduct. He knows, if he knows anything, that the Mosaic
Code, so-called, was, and is, exceedingly barbarous and not
adapted to do justice between man and man, or between

INTERVIEWS. 473

nation and nation. He knows that the Jewish people pur
sued a course adapted to destroy themselves ; that they
refused to make friends with their neighbors; that they
had not the slightest idea of the rights of other people ; that
they really supposed that the earth was theirs, and that their
God was the greatest God in the heavens. He also knows
that there are many thousands of mistakes in the Old Testa
ment as translated. He knows that the book of Isaiah is
made up of several books. He knows the same thing in
regard to the New Testament. He also knows that there
were many other books that were once considered sacred
that have been thrown away, and that nobody knows who
wrote a solitary line of the New Testament.

Besides all this, Dr. Briggs knows that the Old and New
Testaments are filled with interpolations, and he knows
that the passages of Scripture which have been taken as the
foundation stones for creeds, were written hundreds of
years after the death of Christ. He knows well enough
that Christ never said: "I came not to bring peace, but a
sword." He knows that the same being never said : "Thou
art Peter, and on this rock will I build my church." He
knows, too, that Christ never said : " Whosoever believes
shall be saved, and whosoever believes not shall be damned."
He knows that these were interpolations. He knows that
the sin against the Holy Chost is another interpolation. He
knows, if he knows anything, that the gospel according to
John was written long after the rest, and that nearly all the
poison and superstition of orthodoxy is in that book. He
knows also, if he knows anything, that St. Paul never read
one of the four gospels.

Knowing all these things, Dr. Briggs has had the
honesty to say that there was some trouble about taking
the Bible as absolutely inspired in word and punctuation.
I do not think, however, that he can maintain his own
position and still remain a Presbyterian or anything like a

474 INTERVIEWS.

Presbyterian. He takes the ground, I believe, that there
are three sources of knowledge : First, the Bible ; second,
the church ; third, reason. It seems to me that reason
should come first, because if you say the Bible is a source
of authority, why do you say it ? Do you say this because
your reason is convinced that it is ? If so,then reason is tha
foundation of that belief. If, again, you say the church is
a source of authority, why do you say so ? It must be
because its history convinces your reason that it is. Con
sequently, the foundation of that idea is reason. At the
bottom of this pyramid must be reason, and no man is under
any obligation to believe that which is unreasonable to him.
He may believe things that he cannot prove, but he does
not believe them because they are unreasonable. He
believes them because he thinks they are not unreasonable,
not impossible, not improbable. But, after all, reason is the
crucible in which every fact must be placed, and the result
fixes the belief of the intelligent man.

It seems to me that the whole Presbyterian creed must
come down together. It is a scheme based upon certain
facts, so-called. There is in it the fall of man. There is in
it the scheme of the atonement, and there is the idea of
hell, eternal punishment, and the idea of heaven, eternal
reward ; and yet, according to their creed, hell is not a
punishment and heaven is not a reward. Now, if we do
away with the fall of man we do away with the atonement ;
then we do away with all supernatural religion. Then we
come back to human reason. Personally, I hope that the
Presbyterian Church will be advanced enough and splendid
enough to be honest, and if it is honest, all the gentlemen
who amount to anything, who assist in the trial of Dr.
Briggs, will in all probability agree with him, and he will
be acquitted. But if they throw aside their reason, and
remain blindly orthodox, then he will be convicted. To me
it is simply miraculous that any man should imagine that

INTERVIEWS. 475

the Bible is the source of truth. There was a time when all
scientific facts were measured by the Bible. That time is
past, and now the believers in the Bible are doing their best
to convince us that it is in harmony with science. In other
words, I have lived to see a change of standards. When I
was a boy, science was measured by the Bible. Now the
Bible is measured by science. This is an immense step.
So it is impossible for me to conceive what kind of a mind
a man has, who finds in the history of the church the fact
that it has been a source of truth. How can any one come
to the conclusion that the Catholic Church has been a
source of truth, a source of intellectual light ? How can
anyone believe that the church of John Calvin has been a
source of truth ? If its creed is not true, if its doctrines are
mistakes, if its dogmas are monstrous delusions, how can it
be said to have been a source of truth ?

My opinion is that Dr. Briggs will not be satisfied with
the step he has taken. He has turned his face a little
toward the light. The farther he walks the harder it will
be for him to turn back. The probability is that the
orthodox will turn him out, and the process of driving out
men of thought and men of genius will go on until the
remnant will be as orthodox as they are stupid.

Question. Do you think mankind is drifting away from
the supernatural ?

Answer. My belief is that the supernatural has had its
day. The church must either change or abdicate. That is
to say, it must keep step with the progress of the world or
be trampled under foot. The church as a power has ceased
to exist. To-day it is a matter of infinite indifference what
the pulpit thinks unless there comes the voice of heres>
from the sacred place. Every orthodox minister in the
United States is listened to just in proportion that he
preaches heresy. The real, simon-pure, orthodox clergy
man delivers his homilies to empty benches, and to a few

476 INTERVIEWS.

ancient people who know nothing of the tides and currents
of modern thought. The orthodox pulpit to-day has no
thought, and the pews are substantially in the same con
dition. There was a time when the curse of the church
whitened the face of a race, but now its anathema is the
food of laughter.

Question. What, in your judgment, is to be the outcome of
the present agitation in religious circles ?

Answer. My idea is that people more and more are de
clining the postponement of happiness to another world.
The general tendency is to enjoy the present. All religions
have taught men that the pleasures of this world are of no
account; that they are nothing but husks and rags and
chaff and disappointment ; that whoever expects to be
happy in this world makes a mistake ; that there is nothing
on the earth worth striving for ; that the principal business
of mankind should be to get ready to be happy in another
world ; that the great occupation is to save your soul, and
when you get it saved, when you are satisfied that you are one
of the elect, then pack up all your worldy things in a very
small trunk, take it to the dock of time that runs out into the
ocean of eternity, sit down on it, and wait for the ship of
death. And of course each church is the only one that sells
a through ticket which can be depended on. In all relig
ions, so far as I know, is an admixture of asceticism, and
the greater the quantity, the more beautiful the religion has
been considered. The tendency of the world to-day is to
enjoy life while you have it ; it is to get something out of
the present moment; and we have found that there are
things worth living for even in this world. We have found
that a man can enjoy himselt with wife and children; that
he can be happy in the acquisition of knowledge ; that he
can be very happy in assisting others ; in helping those he
loves ; that there is some joy in poetry, in science and in
the enlargement and development of the mind ; that there

INTERVIEWS. 477

is some delight in music and in the drama and in the arts.
We are finding, poor as the world is, that it beats a promise
the fulfillment of which is not to take place until after death.
The world is also finding out another thing, and that is that
the gentlemen who preach these various religions, and
promise these rewards, and threaten these punishments,
know nothing whatever of the subject; that they are as
blindly ignorant as the people they pretend to teach, and
the people are as blindly ignorant as the animals below
them. We have finally concluded that no human being
has the slightest conception of origin or of destiny, and that
this life, not only in its commencement but in its end, is
just as mysterious to-day as it was to the first man whose
eyes greeted the rising sun. We are no nearer the solution
of the problem than those who lived thousands of years
before us, and we are just as near it as those who will live
millions of years after we are dead. So many people hav
ing arrived at the conclusion that nobody knows and that
nobody can know, like sensible folks they have made up
their minds to enjoy this life. I have often said, and I say
again, that I feel as if I were on a ship not kno\ving
the port from which it sailed, not knowing the harbor to
which it was going, not having a speaking acquaintance
with any of the officers, and I have made up my mind to
have as good a time with the other passengers as possible
under the circumstances. If this ship goes down in mid-
sea I have at least made something, and if it reaches a har
bor of perpetual delight I have lost nothing, and I have had a
happy voyage. And I think millions and millions are agree
ing with me.

Now, understand, I am not finding fault with any of these
religions or with any of these ministers. These religions
and these ministers are the necessary and natural products
of sufficient causes. Mankind has traveled from barbarism
to what we now call civilization, by many paths, all of which,

478 INTERVIEWS.

under the circumstances, were absolutely necessary ; and
while I think the individual does as he must, I think the
same of the church, of the corporation, and of the nation,
and not only of the nation, but of the whole human race.
Consequently I have no malice and no prejudices. I have
likes and dislikes. I do not blame a gourd for not being a
cantaloupe, but I like cantaloupes. So I do not blame the old
hard-shell Presbyterian for not being a philosopher ,but I like
philosophers. So to wind it all up with regard to the tendency
of modern thought, or as to the outcome of what you call
religion, my own belief is that what is known as religion
will disappear from the human mind. And by " religion " I
mean the supernatural. By " religion " I mean living in this
world for another, or living in this world to gratify some
supposed being, whom we never saw and about whom we
know nothing, and of whose existence we know nothing.
In other words, religion consists of the duties we are sup
posed to owe to the first great cause, and of certain things
necessary for us to do here to insure happiness hereafter.
These ideas, in my judgment, are destined to perish, and
men will become convinced that all their duties are within
their reach, and that obligations can exist only between
them and other sentient beings. Another idea, I think, will
force itself upon the mind, which is this: That he who
lives the best for this world lives the best for another if
there be one. In other words, humanity will take the place
of what is called "religion." Science will displace super
stition, and to do justice will be the ambition of men.

My creed is this: Happiness is the only good. The
place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now.
The way to be happy is to make others so.

Question. What is going to take the place of the pulpit ?

Answer. I have for a long time wondered why somebody
didn't start a church on a sensible basis. My idea is this :
There are, of course, in every community, lawyers, doctors,

INTERVIEWS. 479

merchants, and people of all trades and professions who
have not the time during the week to pay any particular
attention to history, poetry, art, or song. Now, it seems to
me that it would be a good thing to have a church and for
these men to employ a man of ability, of talent, to preach
to them Sundays, and let this man say to this congregation :
" Now, I am going to preach to you for the first few Sun
days — eight or ten or twenty, we will say — on the art,
poetry, and intellectual achievements of the Greeks." Let
this man study all the week and tell his congregation Sun
day what he has ascertained. Let him give to his people
the history of such men as Plato, as Socrates, what they
did ; of Aristotle, of his philosophy ; of the great Greeks,
their statesmen, their dramatists, their poets, actors, and
sculptors, and let him show the debt that modern civiliza
tion owes to these people. Let him, too, give their religions,
their mythology — a mythology that has sown the seed of
beauty in every land. Then let him take up Rome. Let
him show what a wonderful and practical people they
were; let him give an idea of their statesmen, orators, poets,
lawyers — because probably the Romans were the greatest
lawyers. And so let him go through with nation after
nation, biography after biography, and at the same time let
there be a Sunday school connected with this church
where the children shall be taught something of import
ance. For instance, teach them botany, and when a Sunday
is fair, clear, and beautiful, let them go to the fields and
woods with their teachers, and in a little while they will
become acquainted with all kinds of trees and shrubs and
flowering plants. They could also be taught entomology, so
that every bug would be interesting, for they would see
the facts in science — something of use to them. I believe
that such a church and such a Sunday school would at the
end of a few years be the most intelligent collection of
people in the United States. To teach the children all of

480 INTERVIEWS.

these things and to teach their parents, too, the outlines of
every science, so that every listener would know something
of geology, something of astronomy, so that every member
could tell the manner in which they find the distance of a
star — how much better that would be than the old talk about
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and quotations from Haggai
and Zephaniah, and all this eternal talk about the fall of
man and the Garden of Eden, and the flood, and the atone
ment, and the wonders of Revelation ! Even if the religious
scheme be true, it can be told and understood as well in
one day as in a hundred years. The church says : " He
that hath ears to hear let him hear." I say : " He that
hath brains to think, let him think." So, too, the pulpit is
being displaced by what we call places of amusement,
which are really places where men go because they find
there is something which satisfies in a greater or less de
gree the hunger of the brain. Never before was the theatre
so popular as it is now. Never before was so much money
lavished upon the stage as now. Very few men having
their choice would go to hear a sermon, especially of the
orthodox kind, when they had a chance to see a great actor.
The man must be a curious combination who would pre
fer an orthodox sermon, we will say, to a concert given by
Theodore Thomas. And I may say in passing that I have
great respect for Theodore Thomas, because it was he who
first of all opened to the American people the golden gates
of music. He made the American people acquainted with
the great masters, and especially with Wagner, and it is a
debt that we shall always owe him. In this day the opera
— that is to say, music in every form — is tending to dis
place the pulpit. The pulpits have to go in partnership
with music now. Hundreds of people have excused
themselves to me for going to church, saying they have
splendid music. Long ago the Catholic Church was
forced to go into partnership not only with music, but with

INTERVIEWS. 481

painting and with architecture. The Protestant Church
for a long time thought it could do without these beggarly
elements, and the Protestant Church was simply a dry-
goods box with a small steeple on top of it, its walls as
bleak and bare and unpromising as the creed. But even
Protestants have been forced to hire a choir of ungodly
people who happen to have beautiful voices, and they, too,
have appealed to the organ. Music is taking the place of
creed, and there is more real devotional feeling summoned
from the temple of the mind by great music than by any
sermon ever delivered. Music, of all other things, gives
wings to thought and allows the soul to rise above all the
pains and troubles of this life, and to feel for a moment as
if it were absolutely free, above all clouds, destined to
enjoy forever. So, too, science is beckoning with countless
hands. Men of genius are everywhere beckoning men to
discoveries, promising them fortunes compared with which
Aladdin's lamp was weak and poor. All these things take
men from the church ; take men from the pulpit. In other
words, prosperity is the enemy of the pulpit. When men
enjoy life, when they are prosperous here, they are in love
with the arts, with the sciences, with everything that gives
joy, with everything that promises plenty, and they care
nothing about the prophecies of evil that fall from the
solemn faces of the parsons. They look in other directions.
They are not thinking about the end of the world. They
hate the lugubrious, and they enjoy the sunshine of to-day.
And this, in my judgment, is the highest philosophy : First,
do not regret having lost yesterday ; second, do not fear
that you will lose to-morrow ; third, enjoy to-day.

Astrology was displaced by astronomy. Alchemy and
the black art gave way to chemistry. Science is destined
to take the place of superstition. In my judgment, the
religion of the future will be Reason. — The Tribune, Chicago,

Illinois, November, 1891,

WOMAN SUFFRAGE, HORSE RACING AND MONEY.

Question. What are your opinions on the woman's suf
frage question ?

Answer. I claim no right that I am not willing to give to
my wife and daughters, and to the wives and daughters of
other men. We shall never have a generation of great men
until we have had a generation of great women. I do not
regard ignorance as the foundation of virtue, or useless-
ness as one of the requisites of a lady. I am a believer in
equal rights. Those who are amenable to the laws should
have a voice in making the laws. In every department
where woman has had an equal opportunity with man, she
has shown that she has equal capacity.

George Sand was a great writer, George Eliot one of the
greatest, Mrs. Browning a marvelous poet — and the lyric
beauty of her "Mother and Poet" is greater than anything
her husband ever wrote — Harriet Martineau a wonderful
woman, and Ouida is probably the greatest living novelist,
man or woman. Give the women a chance.

The Colonel's recent election as a life member of the Manhattan
Athletic Club, due strangely enough to a speech of his denouncing
certain forms of sport, was referred to, and this led him to express his
contempt for prize-fighting, and then he said on the subject of horse-
racing :

The only objection I have to horse racing is its cruelty.
The whip and spur should be banished from the track. As
long as these are used, the race track will breed a very low
and heartless set of men. I hate to see a brute whip and
spur a noble animal. The good people object to racing
because of the betting, but bad people, like myself, object
to the cruelty. Men are not forced to bet. That is their

(483)

INTERVIEWS. 483

own business, but the poor horse, straining every nerve,
does not ask for the lash and iron. Abolish torture on the
track and let the best horse win.

Question. What do you think of the Chilian insult to the
United States flag.

Answer. In the first place, I think that our Government
was wrong in taking the part of Balmaceda. In the next
place, we made a mistake in seizing the Itata. America
should always side with the right. We should care nothing
for the pretender in power, and Balmaceda was a cruel,
tyrannical scoundrel. We should be with the people every
where. I do not blame Chili for feeling a little revengeful.
We ought to remember that Chili is weak, and nations, like
individuals, are sensitive in proportion that they are weak.
Let us treat Chili just as we would England. We are too
strong to be unjust.

Question. How do you stand on the money question ?

Answer. I am with the Republican party on the question
of money. I am for the use of gold and silver both, but I
want a dollar's worth of silver in a silver dollar. I do not
believe in light money, or in cheap money, or in poor
money. These are all contradictions in terms. Congress
cannot fix the value of money. The most it can do is to
fix its debt pajdng power. It is beyond the power of any
Congress to fix the purchasing value of what it may be
pleased to call money. Nobody knows, so far as I know,
why people want gold. I do not know why people want
silver. I do not know how gold came to be money;
neither do I understand the universal desire, but it ex
ists, and we take things as we find them. Gold and
silver make up, you may say, the money of the world, and
I believe in using the two metals. I do not believe in de
preciating any American product; but as value cannot be
absolutely fixed by law, so far as the purchasing power is
concerned, and as the values of gold and silver vary, neither

484 INTERVIEWS.

being stable any more than the value of wheat or corn is
stable, I believe that legislation should keep pace within a
reasonable distance at least, of the varying values, and that
the money should be kept as nearly equal as possible. Of
course, there is one trouble with money to-day, and that is
the use of the word "dollar." It has lost its meaning. So
many governments have adulterated their own coin, and so
many have changed weights, that the word " dollar" has not
to-day an absolute, definite, specific meaning. Like indi
viduals, nations have been dishonest. The only time the
papal power had the right to coin money — I believe it was
under Pius IX., when Antonelli was his minister — the coin
of the papacy was so debased that even orthodox Catholics
refused to take it, and it had to be called in and minted by
the French Empire, before even the Italians recognized it
as money. My own opinion is, that either the dollar
must be absolutely defined — it must be the world over
so many grains of pure gold, or so many grains of
pure silver — or we must have other denominations for
our money, as for instance, ounces, or parts of ounces ;
and the time will come, in my judgment, when there will
be a money of the world, the same everywhere ; because
each coin will contain upon its face the certificate of a
government that it contains such a weight — so many grains
or so many ounces — of a certain metal. I, for one, want
the money of the United States to be as good as that of any
other country. I want its gold and silver exactly what
they purport to be ; and I want the paper issued by this
Government to be the same as gold. I want its credit so
perfectly established that it will be taken in every part of
the habitable globe. I am with the Republican party on
the question of money, also on the question of protection ;
and all I hope is that the people of this country will have
sense enough to defend their own interests. — T

Chicago, Illinois, October 87, 1891.

MISSIONARIES.

Question. What is your opinion of foreign missions?

Answer. In the first place, there seems to be a pretty
good opening in this country for missionary work. We
have a good many Indians who are not Methodists. I
have never known one to be converted. A good many have
been killed by Christians, but their souls have not been
saved. Maybe the Methodists had better turn their atten
tion to the heathen of our own country. Then we have a
good many Mormons who rely on the truth of the Old
Testament and follow the example of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob. It seems to me that the Methodists better convert
the Mormons before attacking the tribes of Central Africa.
There is plenty of work to be done right here. A few good
bishops might be employed for a time in converting Dr.
Briggs and Professor Swing, to say nothing of other
heretical Presbyterians.

There is no need of going to China to convert the
Chinese. There are thousands of them here. In China our
missionaries tell the followers of Confucius about the love
and forgiveness of Christians, and when the Chinese come
here they are robbed, assaulted and often murdered.
Would it not be a good thing for the Methodists to civilize
our own Christians to such a degree that they would not
murder a man simply because he belongs to another race
arid worships other gods ?

So, too, I think it would be a good thing for the Metho
dists to go South and persuade their brethren in that country
to treat the colored people with kindness. A few efforts
might be made to convert the " White-caps " in Ohio,
Indiana and some other States.

My advice to the Methodists is to do what little good they

(485)

486 INTERVIEWS.

can right here and now. It seems cruel to preach to the
heathen a gospel that is dying out even here, and fill their
poor minds with the absurd dogmas and cruel creeds that
intelligent men have outgrown and thrown away.

Honest commerce will do a thousand times more good
than all the missionaries on earth. I do not believe that an
intelligent Chinaman or an intelligent Hindoo has ever been
or ever will be converted into a Methodist. If Methodism
is good we need it here, and if it is not good, do not fool the

heathen with it. — The Press, Cleveland, Ohio, November 12, 1891.

MY BELIEF AND UNBELIEF.*

Question. I have heard people in discussing yourself and
your views, express the belief that way down in the depths
of your mind you are not altogether a " disbeliever." Are
they in any sense correct ?

Answer. I am an unbeliever, and I am a believer. I do
not believe in the miraculous, the supernatural or the
impossible. I do not believe in the "Mosaic" account of
the creation, or in the flood, or the Tower of Babel, or that
General Joshua turned back the sun or stopped the earth.
I do not believe in the Jonah story, or that God and the
Devil troubled poor Job. Neither do I believe in the Mt.
Sinai business, and I have my doubts about the broiled
quails furnished in the wilderness. Neither do I believe
that man is wholly depraved. I have not the least faith in
the Eden, snake and apple story. Neither do I believe that
God is an eternal jailer ; that he is going to be the warden
of an everlasting penitentiary in which the most of men are

* Col. Robert G. Ingersoll was in Toledo for a few hours yesterday afternoon on rail
road business. Whatever Mr. Ingersoll says is always read with interest, for besides the
independence of his averments, his ideas are worded in a way thac in itself is attractive.

While in the court room talking with some of the officials and others, he was saying
that in this world there is rather an unequal distribution of comforts, rewards and pun
ishments. For himself, he had fared pretty well. He stated that during the thirty years
he has been married there have been fifteen to twenty of his relatives under the same roof,
but never had there been in his family a death or a night's loss of sleep on account of
sickness.

" The Lord has been prettv good to you," suggested Marshall Wade. " Well I've been
pretty good to him," he answered.

INTERVIEWS. 487

to be eternally tormented. I do not believe that any man
can be justly punished or rewarded on account of his belief.
But I do believe in the nobility of human nature; I
believe in love and home, and kindness and humanity. I
believe in good fellowship and cheerfulness, in making
wife and children happy. I believe in good nature, in giv
ing to others all the rights that you claim for yourself. I
believe in free thought, in reason, observation and experi
ence. I believe in self-reliance and in expressing your
honest thought. I have hope for the whole human race.
What will happen to one, will, I hope, happen to all, and
that, I hope, will be good. Above all, I believe in Liberty.

— The Blade •, Toledo, Ohio January 9, 1892.

MUST RELIGION GO ?

Question. What is your idea as to the difference between
honest belief, as held by honest religious thinkers, and
heterodoxy ?

Answer. Of course, I believe that there are thousands of
men and women who honestly believe not only in the im
probable, not only in the absurd, but in the impossible.
Heterodoxy, so-called, occupies the half-way station between
superstition and reason. A heretic is one who is still
dominated by religion, but in the east of whose mind there
is a dawn. He is one who has seen the morning star ; he
has not entire confidence in the day, and imagines in some
way that even the light he sees was born of the night. In
the mind of the heretic, darkness and light are mingled, the
ties of intellectual kindred bind him to the night, and
yet he has enough of the spirit of adventure to look toward
the east. Of course, I admit that Christians and heretics
are both honest ; a real Christian must be honest and a real
heretic must be the same. All men must be honest in what
they think; but all men are not honest in what they say.
In the invisible world of the mind every man is honest.
The judgment never was bribed. Speech may be false, but

488 INTERVIEWS.

conviction is always honest. So that the difference between
honest belief, as shared by honest religious thinkers and
heretics, is a difference of intelligence. It is the difference
between a ship lashed to the dock, and one making a voy
age; it is the difference between twilight and dawn — that
is to say, the coming of the night and the coming of the
morning.

Question. Are women becoming freed from the bonds of
sectarianism ?

Answer. Women are less calculating than men. As a
rule they do not occupy the territory of compromise. They
are natural extremists. The woman who is not dominated
by superstition is apt to be absolutely free, and when a
woman has broken the shackles of superstition, she has no
apprehension, no fears. She feels that she is on the open
sea, and she cares neither for wind nor wave. An emanci
pated woman never can be re-enslaved. Her heart goes
with her opinions, and goes first.

Question. Do you consider that the influence of religion
is better than the influence of Liberalism upon society;
that is to say, is society less or more moral, is vice more or
less conspicuous ?

Answer. Whenever a chain is broken an obligation takes
its place. There is and there can be no responsibility with
out liberty. The freer a man is, the more responsible, the
more accountable he feels ; consequently the more liberty
ihere is, the more morality there is. Believers in religion
teach us that God will reward men for good actions, but
men who are intellectually free, know that the reward of a
good action cannot be given by any power, but that it is
the natural result of the good action. The free man, guided
by intelligence, knows that his reward is in the nature of
things, and not in the caprice even of the Infinite. He is
aot a good and faithful servant, he is an intelligent free
van.

INTERVIEWS. 489

The vicious are ignorant ; real morality is the child of
intelligence ; the free and intelligent man knows that every
action must be judged by its consequences; he knows that
if he does good he reaps a good harvest ; he knows that if
he does evil he bears a burden, and he knows that these
good and evil consequences are not determined by an in
finite master, but that they live in and are produced by the

actions themselves. — Evening Advertiser, New York, February 6, 1892.

WORD PAINTING AND COLLEGE EDUCATION.

Question. What is the history of the speech delivered
here in 1876 ? Was it extemporaneous?

Answer. It was not born entirely of the occasion. It
took me several years to put the thoughts in form — to
paint the pictures with words. No man can do his best on
the instant. Iron to be beaten into perfect form has to be
heated several times and turned upon the anvil many more,
and hammered long and often.

You might as well try to paint a picture with one sweep
of the brush, or chisel a statue with one stroke, as to paint
many pictures with words, without great thought and care.
Now and then while a man is talking, heated with his sub
ject, a great thought, sudden as a flash of lightning, illu
mines the intellectual sky, and a great sentence clothed in
words of purple, falls, or rather rushes, from his lips — but
a continuous flight is born, not only of enthusiasm, but of
long and careful thought. A perfect picture requires more
details, more lights and shadows, than the mind can grasp
at once, or on the instant. Thoughts are not born of chance.
They grow and bud and blossom, and bear the fruit oi
perfect form.

Genius is the soil and climate, but the soil must be culti
vated, and the harvest is not instantly after the planting.
It takes time and labor to raise and harvest a crop from
that field called the brain.

490 INTERVIEWS.

Question. Do you think young men need a college educa
tion to get along ?

Answer. Probably many useless things are taught in col
leges. I think, as a rule, too much time is wasted learning
the names of the cards without learning to play a game. I
think a young man should be taught something that he can
use — something that he can sell. After coming from col
lege he should be better equipped to battle with the world —
to do something of use. A man may have his brain stuffed
with Greek and Latin without being able to fill his stomach
with anything of importance. Still, I am in favor of the
highest education. I would like to see splendid schools in
every State, and then a university, and all scholars passing
a certain examination sent to the State university free, and
then a United States university, the best in the world, and
all graduates of the State universities passing a certain ex
amination sent to the United States university free. We
ought to have in this country the best library, the best
university, the best school of design in the world ; and so
I say, more money for the mind.

Question. Was the peculiar conduct of the Rev. Dr. Park-
hurst, of New York, justifiable, and do you think that it
had a tendency to help morality ?

Answer. If Christ had written a decoy letter to the woman
to whom he said : " Go and sin no more," and if he had dis
guised himself and visited her house and had then lodged a
complaint against her before the police and testified against
her, taking one of his disciples with him, I do not think he
would have added to his reputation. — The News, Indianapolis,

Indiana, February 18, 1892.

PERSONAL MAGNETISM AND THE SUNDAY

QUESTION.

Colonel Ingersoll was a picturesque figure as he sat in his room at
the Gibson House yesterday, while the balmy May breeze blew
through the open windows, fluttered the lace curtains and tossed the
great Infidel's snowy hair to and fro. The Colonel had come in from
New York during the morning and the keen white sunlight of a lovely
May day filled his heart with gladness. After breakfast, the man who
preaches the doctrine of the Golden Rule and the Gospel of Humanity
and the while chaffs the gentlemen of the clerical profession, was in
a fine humor. He was busy with cards and callers, but not too busy
to admire the vase full of freshly-picked spring flowers that stood on
the mantel, and wrestled with clouds of cigar smoke, to see which
fragrance should dominate the atmosphere.

To a reporter of The Commercial Gazette, the Colonel spoke freely
and interestingly upon a variety of subjects, from personal magnetism
in politics to mob rule in Tennessee. He had been interested in
Colonel Weir's statement about the lack of gas in Exposition Hall, at
the 1876 convention, and when asked if he believed there was any
truth in the stories that the gas supply had been manipulated so as to
prevent the taking of a ballot after he had placed James G. Blaine in
nomination, he replied :

All I can say is, that I heard such a story the day after
the convention, but I do not know whether or not it is true.
T have always believed, that if a vote had been taken that
evening, Blaine would have been nominated, possibly not
as the effect of my speech, but the night gave time for trad
ing, and that is always dangerous in a convention. I
believed then that Blaine ought to have been nominated,
and that it would have been a very wise thing for the party
to have done. That he was not the candidate was due
partly to accident and partly to political traffic, but that is
one of the bygones, and I believe there is an old saying to
the effect that even the gods have no mastery over the past.

Question. Do you think that eloquence is potent in a
convention to set aside the practical work of politics and
politicians ? <491>

49* INTERVIEWS.

Answer. I think all the eloquence in the world cannot
affect a trade if the parties to the contract stand firm, and
when people have made a political trade they are not the
kind of people to be affected by eloquence. The practical
work of the world has very little to do with eloquence.
There are a great many thousand stone masons to one
sculptor, and houses and walls are not constructed by
sculptors, but by masons. The daily wants of the world
are supplied by the practical workers, by men of talent, not
by men of genius, although in the world of invention,
genius has done more, it may be, than the workers them
selves. I fancy the machinery now in the world does the
work of many hundreds of millions; that there is machinery
enough now to do several times the work that could be done
by all the men, women and children ot the earth. The
genius who invented the reaper did more work and will do
more work in the harvest field than thousands of millions
of men, and the same may be said of the great engines that
drive the locomotives and the ships. All these marvelous
machines were made by men of genius, but they are not
the men who in fact do the work.

This led the Colonel to pay a brilliant tribute to the great orators
of ancient and modern times, the peer of all of them being Cicero.
He dissected and defined oratory and eloquence, and explained
with picturesque figures, wherein the difference between them lay.
As he mentioned the magnetism of public speakers, he was asked as
to his opinion of the value of personal magnetism in political life.

It may be difficult to define what personal magnetism is,
but I think it may be defined in this way: You don't
always feel like asking a man whom you meet on the street
what direction you should take to reach a certain point.
You often allow three or four to pass, before you meet one
who seems to invite the question. So, too, there are men by
whose side you may sit for hours in the cars without ven
turing a remark as to the weather, and there are others to

INTERVIEWS. 493

whom you will commence talking the moment you sit
down. There are some men who look as if they would
grant a favor, men toward whom you are unconsciously
drawn, men who have a real human look, men with whom
you seem to be acquainted almost before you speak, and
that }^ou really like before you know anything about them.
It may be that we are all electric batteries ; that we have our
positive and our negative poles ; it may be that we need
some influence that certain others impart, and it may be that
certain others have that which we do not need and which
we do not want, and the moment you think that, you feel
annoyed and hesitate, and uncomfortable, and possibly
hateful.

I suppose there is a physical basis for everything. Pos
sibly the best test of real affection between man and woman,
or of real friendship between man and woman, is that they
can sit side by side, for hours maybe, without speaking, and
yet be having a really social time, each feeling that the
other knows exactly what they are thinking about. Now,
the man you meet and whom you would not hesitate a
moment to ask a favor of, is what I call a magnetic man.
This magnetism, or whatever it may be, assists in making
friends, and of course is a great help to any one who deals
with the public. Men like a magnetic man even without
knowing him, perhaps simply having seen him. There are
other men, whom the moment you shake hands with them,
you feel you want no more ; you have had enough. A sudden
chill runs up the arm the moment your hand touches
theirs, and finally reaches the heart ; you feel, if you had held
that hand a moment longer, an icicle would have formed in
the brain. Such people lack personal magnetism. These
people now and then thaw out when you get thoroughly
acquainted with them, and you find that the ice is all on the
outside, and then you come to like them very well, but as
a rule first impressions are lasting. Magnetism is what

494 INTERVIEWS.

you might call the climate of a man. Some men, and some
women, look like a perfect June day, and there are others
who, while they look quite smiling, yet you feel that the
sky is becoming overcast, and the signs all point to an early
storm. There are people who are autumnal — that is to say,
generous. They have had their harvest, and have plenty
to spare. Others look like the end of an exceedingly hard
winter — between the hay and grass, the hay mostly gone
and the grass not yet come up. So you will see that I
think a great deal of this thing that is called magnetism.
As I said, there are good people who are not magnetic, but
I do not care to make an Arctic expedition for the purpose
of discovering the north pole of their character. I would
rather stay with those who make me feel comfortable at the
first.

From personal magnetism to the lynching Saturday morning down
at Nashville, Tennessee, was a far cry, but when Colonel Ingersoll
was asked what he thought of mob law, whether there was any extenu
ation, any propriety and moral effect resultant from it, he quickly
answered :

I do not believe in mob law at any time, among any
people. I believe in justice being meted out in accordance
with the forms of law. If a community violates that law,
why should not the individual ? The example is bad. Be
sides all that, no punishment inflicted by a mob tends to
prevent the commission of crime. Horrible punishment
hardens the community, and that in itself produces more
crime.

There seems to be a sort of fascination in frightful
punishments, but, to say the least of it, all these things
demoralize the community. In some countries, you know,
they whip people for petty offences. The whipping, how
ever, does no good, and on the other hand it does harm ; it
hardens those who administer the punishment and those
who witness it, and it degrades those who receive it. There
will be but little charity in the world, and but little progress

INTERVIEWS. 495

until men see clearly that there is no chance in the world of
conduct any more than in the physical world.

Back of every act and dream and thought and desire
and virtue and crime is the efficient cause. If you wish to
change mankind, you must change the conditions. There
should be no such thing as punishment. We should
endeavor to reform men, and those who cannot be reformed
should be placed where they cannot injure their fellows.
The State should never take revenge any more than the
community should form itself into a mob and take revenge.
This does harm, not good. The time will come when the
world will no more think of sending men to the penitentiary
for stealing, as a punishment, than it will for sending a
man to the penitentiary because he has consumption. When
that time comes, the object will be to reform men; to pre
vent crime instead of punishing it, and the object then will
be to make the conditions such that honest people will be
the result, but as long as hundreds of thousands of human
beings live in tenements, as long as babes are raised in
gutters, as long as competition is so sharp that hundreds of
thousands must of necessity be failures, just so long you
will have your jails and your prisons full. Just as long as
society gets down on its knees before the great and success
ful thieves, before the millionaire thieves, just so long will
it have to fill the jails and prisons with the little thieves.
When the " good time" comes, men will not be judged by
the money they have accumulated, but by the uses they
make of it. So men will be judged, not according to
their intelligence, but by what they are endeavoring to
accomplish with their intelligence. In other words, the
time will come when character will rise above all. There
is a great line in Shakespeare that I have often quoted, and
that cannot be quoted too often : "There is no darkness but
ignorance." Let the world set itself to work to dissipate
this darkness ; let us flood the world with intellectual light.

496 INTERVIEWS,

This cannot be accomplished by mobs or lynchers. It
must be done by the noblest, by the greatest, and by the
best.

The conversation shifting around to the Sunday question ; the
opening of the World's Fair on Sunday, the attacks of the pulpit upon
the Sunday newspapers, the opening of parks and museums and
libraries on Sunday, Colonel Ingersoll waxed eloquent, and in answer
to many questions uttered these paragraphs :

Of course, people will think I have some prejudice against
the parsons, but really I think the newspaper press is of
far more importance in the world than the pulpit. If I
should admit in a kind of burst of generosity, and simply
for the sake of making a point, that the pulpit can do some
good, how much can it do without the aid of the press ?
Here is a parson preaching to a few ladies and enough men,
it may be, to pass the contribution box, and all he says dies
within the four walls of that church. How many ministers
would it take to reform the world, provided I again admit
in a burst of generosity, that there is any reforming power
in what they preach, working along that line ?

The Sunday newspaper, I think, is the best of any day in
the week. That paper keeps hundreds and thousands at
home. You can find in it information about almost every
thing in the world. One of the great Sunday papers will
keep a family busy reading almost all day. Now, I do not
wonder that the ministers are opposed to the Sunday news
paper, and so they are opposed to anything calculated to
decrease the attendance at church. Why, they want all the
parks, all the museums, all the libraries closed on Sunday,
and they want the World's Fair closed on Sunday.

Now, I am in favor of Sunday ; in fact, I am perfectly
willing to have two of them a week, but I want Sunday as
a day of recreation and pleasure. The fact is we ought not
to work hard enough during the week to require a day of
rest. Every day ought to be so arranged that there would
be time for rest from the labor of that day. Sunday is a

INTERVIEWS. 497

good day to get business out of your mind, to forget the
ledger and the docket and the ticker, to forget profits and
losses, and enjoy yourself. It is a good day to go to the
art museums, to look at pictures and statues and beautiful
things, so that you may feel that there is something in this
world besides money and mud. It is a good day, is Sunday,
to go to the libraries and spend a little time with the great
and splendid dead, and to go to the cemetery and think of
those who are sleeping there, and to give a little thought to
the time when you, too, like them, will fall asleep. I think
it is a good day for almost anything except going to church.
There is no need of that ; everybody knows the story, and
if a man has worked hard all the week, you can hardly call
it recreation if he goes to church Sunday and hears that his
chances are ninety-nine in a hundred in favor of being
eternally damned.

So it is I am in favor of having the World's Fair open on
Sunday. It will be a good day to look at the best the
world has produced ; a good day to leave the saloons and
commune for a little while with the mighty spirits that have
glorified this world. Sunday is a good day to leave the
churches, where they teach that man has become totally
depraved, and look at the glorious things that have been
wrought by these depraved beings. Besides all this, it is
the day of days for the working man and working woman,
for those who have to work all the week. In New York an
effort was made to open the Metropolitan Museum of Art
on Sunday, and the pious people opposed it. They thought
it would interfere with the joy of heaven if people were
seen in the park enjoying themselves on Sunday, and they
also held that nobody would visit the Museum if it were
opened on Sunday ; that the " common people " had no love
for pictures and statues and cared nothing about art. The
doors were opened, and it was demonstrated that the poor
people, the toilers and workers, did want to see such things

498 INTERVIEWS.

on Sunday, and now more people visit the Museum on Sun
day than on all the other days of the week put together.
The same is true of the public libraries. There is some
thing to me infinitely pharisaical, hypocritical and farcical
in this Sunday nonsense. The rich people who favor keep
ing Sunday " holy," have their coachman drive them to
church and wait outside until the services end. What do
they care about the coachman's soul ? While they are at
church their cooks are busy at home getting dinner ready.
What do they care for the souls of cooks ? The whole
thing is pretence, and nothing but pretence. It is the in
stinct of business. It is the competition of the gospel shop
with other shops and places of resort.

The ministers, of course, are opposed to all shows except
their own, for they know that very few will come to see or
hear them and the choice must be the church or nothing.

I do not believe that one day can be more holy than
another unless more joyous than another. The holiest day
is the happiest day — the day on which wives and children
and men are happiest. In that sense a day can be holy.

Our idea of the Sabbath is from the Puritans, and they
imagined that a man has to be miserable in order to excite
the love of God. We have outgrown the old New England
Sabbath — the old Scotch horror. The Germans have helped
us and have set a splendid example. I do not see how a
poor workingman can go to church for recreation — I mean
an orthodox church. A man who has hell here cannot be
benefited by being assured that he is likely to have hell
hereafter. The whole business I hold in perfect abhorrence.

They tell us that God will not prosper us unless we
observe the Sabbath. The Jews kept the Sabbath and yet
Jehovah deserted them, and they are a people without a
nation. The Scotch kept Sunday ; they are not independent.
The French never kept Sunday, and yet are the most pros
perous nation in Europe. — Commtrcwl Gazette, Cincinnati, Ohio, M;;y
S, 1898.

AUTHORS.

Question. Who, in your opinion, is the greatest novelist
who has written in the English language ?

Answer. The greatest novelist, in my opinion, who has
ever written in the English language, was Charles Dickens.
He was the greatest observer since Shakespeare. He had
the eyes that see, the ears that really hear. I place him
above Thackeray. Dickens wrote for the home, for the great
public. Thackeray wrote for the clubs. The greatest novel
in our language — and it may be in any other — is, according
to my idea, " A Tale of Two Cities." In that, are philoso
phy, pathos, self-sacrifice, wit, humor, the grotesque and
the tragic. I think it is the most artistic novel that I have
read. The creations of Dickens' brain have become the
citizens of the world.

Question. What is your opinion of American writers ?

Answer. I think Emerson was a fine writer, and he did
this world a great deal of good, but I do not class him with
the first. Some of his poetry is wonderfully good and in it
are some of the deepest and most beautiful lines. I think
he was a poet rather than a philosopher. His doctrine of
compensation would be delightful if it had the facts to sup
port it.

Of course, Hawthorne was a great writer. His style is a
little monotonous, but the matter is good. "The Marble
Faun " is by far his best effort. I shall always regret that
Hawthorne wrote the life of Franklin Pierce.

Walt Whitman will hold a high place among American
writers. His poem on the death of Lincoln, entitled " When
Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd," is the greatest ever
written on this continent. He was a natural poet and wrote

500 INTERVIEWS.

lines worthy of America. He was the poet of democracy,
of individuality, and of liberty. He was worthy of the
great Republic.

Question. How about Henry George's books ?

Answer. Henry George wrote a wonderful book, and
one that arrested the attention of the world — one of the
greatest books of the century. While I do not believe in
his destructive theories, I gladly pay a tribute to his sincer
ity and his genius.

Question. What do you think of Bellamy ?

Answer. I do not think what is called nationalism of the
Bellamy kind is making any particular progress in this
country. We are believers in individual independence, and
will be, I hope, forever.

Boston was at one time the literary center of the country,
but the best writers are not living there now. The best
novelists of our country are not from Boston. Edgar
Fawcett lives in New York. Howells was born, I believe,
in Ohio, and Julian Hawthorne lives in New Jersey or on
Long Island. Among the poets, James Whitcomb Riley is
a native of Indiana, and he has written some of the daintiest
and sweetest things in American literature. Edgar Faw
cett is a great poet. His " Magic Flower " is as beautiful
as anything Tennyson has ever written. Eugene Field of
Chicago, has written some charming things, natural and
touching.
Westward the star of literature takes its course. — The star,

Kansas City, Mo., May 26, 1892.

INEBRIETY.*

Question. Do you consider inebriety a disease, or the
result of diseased conditions ?

Answer. I believe that by a long and continuous use of
stimulants, the system gets in such a condition that it im
peratively demands not only the usual, but an increased
stimulant. After a time, every nerve becomes hungry, and
there is in the body of the man a cry, coming from every
nerve, for nourishment. There is a kind of famine, and
unless the want is supplied, insanity is the result. This
hunger of the nerves drowns the voice of reason — cares
nothing for argument — nothing for experience — nothing
for the sufferings of others — nothing for anything, except
for the food it requires. Words are wasted, advice is of
no possible use, argument is like reasoning with the dead.
The man has lost the control of his will — it has been won
over to the side of the nerves. He imagines that if the
nerves are once satisfied he can then resume the control
of himself. Of course, this is a mistake, and the more
the nerves are satisfied, the more imperative is their de
mand. Arguments are not of the slightest force. The
knowledge — the conviction — that the course pursued is
wrong, has no effect. The man is in the grasp of appetite.
He is like a ship at the mercy of wind and wave and tide.
The fact that the needle of the compass points to the
north has no effect — the compass is not a force — it cannot
battle with the wind and tide — and so, in spite of the fact
that the needle points to the north, the ship is stranded on
the rocks.

* Published from notes found among Colonel Ingersoll'8 papers, evidently written
goon after the discovery of the " Keeley Cure." (501)

502 INTERVIEWS.

So the fact that the man knows that he should not drink
has not the slightest effect upon him. The sophistry of
passion outweighs all that reason can urge. In other
words, the man is the victim of disease, and until the
disease is arrested, his will is not his own. He may wish
to reform, but wish is not will. He knows all of the argu
ments in favor of temperance — he knows all about the dis
tress of wife and child — all about the loss of reputation and
character — all about the chasm toward which he is drift
ing — and yet, not being the master of himself, he goes with
the tide.

For thousands of years society has sought to do away
with inebriety by argument, by example, by law ; and yet
millions and millions have been carried away and countless
thousands have become victims of alcohol. In this contest
words have always been worthless, for the reason that no
argument can benefit a man who has lost control of himself.

Question. As a lawyer, will you express an opinion as to
the moral and legal responsibility of a victim of alcoholism?

Answer. Personally, I regard the moral and legal respon
sibility of all persons as being exactly the same. All per
sons do as they must. If you wish to change the conduct
of an individual you must change his conditions — other
wise his actions will remain the same.

We are beginning to find that there is no effect without
a cause, and that the conduct of individuals is not an ex
ception to this law. Every hope, every fear, every dream,
every virtue, every crime, has behind it an efficient cause.
Men do neither right nor wrong by chance. In the world
of fact and in the world of conduct, as well as in the world
of imagination, there is no room, no place, for chance.

Question. In the case of an inebriate who has committed
a crime, what do you think of the common judicial opinion
that such a criminal is as deserving of punishment as a
person not inebriated ?

INTERVIEWS. 503

Answer. I see no difference. Believing as I do that all
persons act as they must, it makes not the slightest differ
ence whether the person so acting is what we call inebriated,
or sane, or insane — he acts as he must.

There should be no such thing as punishment. Society
should protect itself by such means as intelligence and hu
manity may suggest, but the idea of punishment is bar
barous. No man ever was, no man ever will be, made
better by punishment. Society should have two objects in
view : first, the defence of itself, and second, the reforma
tion of the so-called criminal.

The world has gone on fining, imprisoning, torturing and
killing the victims of condition and circumstance, and con
dition and circumstance have gone on producing the same
kind of men and women year after year and century after
century — and all this is so completely within the control of
cause and effect, within the scope and jurisdiction of uni
versal law, that we can prophesy the number of criminals
for the next year — the thieves and robbers and murderers
— with almost absolute certainty.

There are just so many mistakes committed every year —
so many crimes — so many heartless and foolish things done
— and it does not seem to be — at least by the present
methods — possible to increase or decrease the number.

We have thousands and thousands of pulpits, and thou
sands of moralists, and countless talkers and advisers, but
all these sermons, and all the advice, and all the talk, seem
utterly powerless in the presence of cause and effect.
Mothers may pray, wives may weep, children may starve,
but the great procession moves on.

For thousands of years the world endeavored to save it
self from disease by ceremonies, by genuflections, by
prayers, by an appeal to the charity and mercy of heaven
— but the diseases flourished and the graveyards became
populous, and all the ceremonies and all the prayers were

504 INTERVIEWS.

without the slightest effect. We must at last recognize the
fact, that not only life, but conduct, has a physical basis.
We must at last recognize the fact that virtue and vice,
genius and stupidity, are born of certain conditions.

Question. In which way do you think the reformation or
reconstruction of the inebriate is to be effected — by punish
ment, by moral suasion, by seclusion,, or by medical treat
ment ?

Answer. In the first place, punishment simply increases
the disease. The victim, without being able to give his
reasons, feels that punishment is unjust, and thus feeling,
the effect of the punishment cannot be good.

You might as well punish a man for having the con
sumption which he inherited from his parents, or for hav
ing a contagious disease which was given to him without
his fault, as to punish him for drunkenness. No one wishes
to be unhappy — no one wishes to destroy his own well-
being. All persons prefer happiness to unhappiness, and
success to failure. Consequently, you might as well punish
a man for being unhappy, and thus increase his unhappi
ness, as to punish him for drunkenness. In neither case is
he responsible for what he suffers.

Neither can you cure this man by what is called moral
suasion. Moral suasion, if it amounts to anything, is the
force of argument — that is to say, the result of presenting
the facts to the victim. Now, of all persons in the world,
the victim knows the facts. He knows not only the effect
upon those who love him, but the effect upon himself.
There are no words that can add to his vivid appreciation
of the situation. There is no language so eloquent as the
sufferings of wife and children. All these things the
drunkard knows, and knows perfectly, and knows as well
as any other human being can know. At the same time,
he feels that the tide and current of passion are beyond his
power. He feels that he cannot row against the stream.

INTERVIEWS. 505

There is but one way, and that is, to treat the drunkard
as the victim of disease — treat him precisely as you would
a man with a fever, as a man suffering from smallpox, or
with some form of indigestion. It is impossible to talk a
man out of consumption, or to reason him out of typhoid
fever. You may tell him that he ought not to die, that he
ought to take into consideration the condition in which he
would leave his wife. You may talk to him about his
children — the necessity of their being fed and educated —
but all this will have nothing to do with the progress of
the disease. The man does not wish to die — he wishes to
live — and yet, there will come a time in his disease when
even that wish to live loses its power to will, and the man
drifts away on the tide, careless of life or death.

So it is with drink. Every nerve asks for a stimulant.
Every drop of blood cries out for assistance, and in spite of
all argument, in spite of all knowledge, in this famine of
the nerves, a man loses the power of will. Reason abdi
cates the throne, and hunger takes its place.

Question. Will you state your reasons for your belief?

Answer. In the first place, I will give a reason for my
unbelief in what is called moral suasion and in legislation.

As I said before, for thousands and thousands of years,
fathers and mothers and daughters and sisters and
brothers have been endeavoring to prevent the ones they
love from drink, and yet, in spite of everything, millions
have gone on and filled at last a drunkard's grave. So,
societies have been formed all over the world. But the
consumption of ardent spirits has steadily increased. Laws
have been passed in nearly all the nations of the world upon
this subject, and these laws, so far as I can see, have done
but little, if any, good.

And the same old question is upon us now : What shall
be done with the victims of drink? There have been prob
ably many instances in which men have signed the pledge

506 INTERVIEWS.

and have reformed. I do not say that it is not possible to
reform many men, in certain stages, by moral suasion.
Possibty, many men can be reformed in certain stages, by
law; but the per cent, is so small that, in spite of that per
cent., the average increases. For these reasons, I have lost
confidence in legislation and in moral suasion. I do not
say what legislation may do by way of prevention, or
what moral suasion may do in the same direction, but I do
say that after men have become the victims of alcohol, ad
vice and law seem to have lost their force.

I believe that science is to become the savior of man
kind. In other words, every appetite, every excess, has a
physical basis, and if we only knew enough of the human
system — of the tides and currents of thought and will and
wish — enough of the storms of passion — if we only knew
how the brain acts and operates — if we only knew the rela
tion between blood and thought, between thought and act
— if we only knew the conditions of conduct, then we could,
through science, control the pas.sions of the human race.

When I first heard of the cure of inebriety through scien
tific means, I felt that the morning star had risen in the
east — I felt that at last we were finding solid ground. I
did not accept — being of a skeptical turn of mind — all that
I heard as true. I preferred to hope, and wait. I have
waited, until I have seen men, the victims of alcohol, in the
very gutter of disgrace and despair, lifted from the mire,
rescued from the famine of desire, from the grasp of appe
tite. I have seen them suddenly become men — masters and
monarchs of themselves.

MIRACLES, THEOSOPHY AND SPIRITUALISM.

Question. Do you believe that there is such a thing as a
miracle, or that there has ever been ?

Answer. Mr. Locke was in the habit of saying : " Define
your terms." So the first question is, What is a miracle ?
If it is something wonderful, unusual, inexplicable, then
there have been many miracles. If you mean simply that
which is inexplicable, then the world is filled with miracles ;
but if you mean by a miracle, something contrary to the
facts in nature, then it seems to me that the miracle must
be admitted to be an impossibility. It is like twice two are
eleven in mathematics.

If, again, we take the ground of some of the more ad
vanced clergy, that a miracle is in accordance with the
facts in nature, but with facts unknown to man, then we
are compelled to say that a miracle is performed by a divine
sleight-of-hand ; as, for instance, that our senses are de
ceived ; or, that it is perfectly simple to this higher intelli
gence, while inexplicable to us. If we give this explanation,
then man has been imposed upon by a superior intelligence.
It is as though one acquainted with the sciences — with the
action of electricity — should excite the wonder of savages
by sending messages to his partner. The savage would
say, "A miracle;" but the one who sent the message would
say, " There is no miracle ; it is in accordance with facts in
nature unknown to you." So that, after all, the word
miracle grows in the soil of ignorance.

The question arises whether a superior intelligence ought
to impose upon the inferior. I believe there was a French
saint who had his head cut off by robbers, and this saint,
after the robbers went away, got up, took his head under

(5075

508 INTERVIEWS.

his arm and went on his way until he found friends to set
it on right. A thing like this, if it really happened, was a
miracle.

So it may be said that nothing is much more miraculous
than the fact that intelligent men believe in miracles. If
we read in the annals of China that several thousand years
ago five thousand people were fed on one sandwich, and
that several sandwiches were left over after the feast, there
are few intelligent men — except, it may be, the editors of
religious weeklies — who would credit the statement. But
many intelligent people, reading a like story in the Hebrew,
or in the Greek, or in a mistranslation from either of these
languages, accept the story without a doubt.

So if we should find in the records of the Indians that a
celebrated medicine-man of their tribe used to induce devils
to leave crazy people and take up their abode in wild
swine, very few people would believe the story.

I believe it is true that the priest of one religion has
never had the slightest confidence in the priest of any other
religion.

My own opinion is, that nature is just as wonderful one
time as another ; that that which occurs to-day is just as
miraculous as anything that ever happened ; that nothing
is more wonderful than that we 'live — that we think — that
we convey our thoughts by speech, by gestures, by pictures.

Nothing is more wonderful than the growth of grass —
the production of seed — the bud, the blossom and the
fruit. In other words, we are surrounded by the inexpli
cable.

All that happens in conformity with what we know, we
call natural ; and that which is said to have happened, not
in conformity with what we know, we say is wonderful ;
and that which we believe to have happened contrary to
what we know, we call the miraculous.

I think the truth is, that nothing ever happened except in

INTERVIEWS. 509

a natural way ; that behind every effect has been an effi
cient cause, and that this wondrous procession of causes
and effects has never been, and never will be, broken. In
other words, there is nothing superior to the universe —
nothing that can interfere with this procession of causes
and effects. I believe in no miracles in the theological
sense. My opinion is that the universe is, forever has
been, and forever will be, perfectly natural.

Whenever a religion has been founded among barbarous
and ignorant people, the founder has appealed to miracle
as a kind of credential — as an evidence that he is in part
nership with some higher power. The credulity of savagery
made this easy. But at last we have discovered that there
is no necessary relation between the miraculous and the
moral. Whenever a man's reason is developed to that
point that he sees the reasonableness of a thing, he needs
no miracle to convince him. It is only ignorance or cun
ning that appeals to the miraculous.

There is another thing, and that is this : Truth relies
upon itself — that is to say, upon the perceived relation be
tween itself and all other truths. If you tell the facts, you
need not appeal to a miracle. It is only a mistake or a
falsehood, that needs to be propped and buttressed by
wonders and miracles.

Question. What is your explanation of the miracles re
ferred to in the Old and New Testaments?

Answer. In the first place, a miracle cannot be explained.
If it is a real miracle, there is no explanation. If it can be
explained, then the miracle disappears, and the thing was
done in accordance with the facts and forces of nature.

In a time when not one it may be in many thousands
could read or write, when language was rude, and when
the signs by which thoughts were conveyed were few and
inadequate, it was very easy to make mistakes, and nothing
is more natural than for a mistake to £ro\v juto a miracie<

5IO INTERVIEWS.

In an ignorant age, history for the most part depended upon
memory. It was handed down from the old in their dotage,
to the young without judgment. The old always thought
that the early days were wonderful — that the world was
wearing out because they were. The past looked at
through the haze of memory, became exaggerated, gigantic.
Their fathers were stronger than the}', and their grand
fathers far superior to their fathers, and so on until they
reached men who had the habit of living about a thousand
years.

In my judgment, everything in the Old Testament con
trary to the experience of the civilized world, is false. I
do not say that those who told the stories knew they were
false, or that those who wrote them suspected that they
were not true. Thousands and thousands of lies are told
by honest stupidity and believed by innocent credulity.
Then again, cunning takes advantage of credulity, and
selfish intelligence takes advantage of ignorance, and so
far as I know, through all the history of the world a good
many people have endeavored to make a living without
work.

I am perfectly convinced of the integrity of nature — that
the elements are eternally the same — that the chemical
affinities and hatreds know no shadow of turning — that just
so many atoms of one kind combine with so many atoms of
another, and that the relative numbers have never changed
and will never change. I am satisfied that the attraction
of gravitation is a permanent institution ; that the laws of
motion have been the same that they forever will be.
There is no chance, there is no caprice. Behind every
effect is a cause, and very effect must in its turn become
a cause, and only that is produced which a cause of neces
sity produces.

Question. What do you think of Madame Blavatsky and
her school of Theosophists ? Do you believe Madame

INTERVIEWS. 511

Blavatsky does or has done the wonderful things related of
her? Have you seen or known of any Theosophical or
esoteric marvels?

Answer. I think wonders are about the same in this
country that they are in India, and nothing appears more
likely to me simply because it is surrounded with the mist
of antiquity. In my judgment, Madame Blavatsky has
never done any wonderful things — that is to say, anything
not in perfect accordance with the facts of nature.

I know nothing of esoteric marvels. In one sense,
everything that exists is a marvel, and the probability is
that if we knew the history of one grain of sand we would
know the history of the universe. I regard the universe as
a unit. Everything that happens is only a different aspect
of that unit. There is no room for the marvelous — there
is no space in which it can operate — there is no fulcrum for
its lever. The universe is already occupied with the
natural. The ground is all taken.

It may be that all these people are perfectly honest, and
imagine that they have had wonderful experiences. I
know but little of the Theosophists — but little of the
Spiritualists. It has always seemed to me that the messages
received by Spiritualists are remarkably unimportant — that
they tell us but little about the other world, and just as
little about this — that if all the messages supposed to have
come from angelic lips, or spiritual lips, were destroyed,
certainly the literature of the world would lose but little.
Some of these people are exceedingly intelligent, and
whenever they say any good thing, I imagine that it was
produced in their brain, and that it came from no other
world. I have no right to pass upon their honesty. Most
of them may be sincere. It may be that all the founders
of religions have really supposed themselves to be in
spired — believed that they held conversations with angels
and Gods. It seems to be easy for some people to get in

512

INTERVIEWS.

such a frame of mind that their thoughts become realities,
their dreams substances, and their very hopes palpable.

Personally, I have no sort of confidence in these messages
from the other world. There may be mesmeric forces —
there may be an odic force. It may be that some people
can tell of what another is thinking. I have seen no such
people — at least I am not acquainted with them — and my
own opinion is that no such persons exist.

Question. Do you believe the spirits of the dead come
back to earth ?

Answer. I do not. I do not say that the spirits do not
come back. I simply say that I know nothing on the sub
ject. I do not believe in such spirits, simply for the reason
that I have no evidence upon which to base such a belief.
I do not say there are no such spirits, for the reason that
my knowledge is limited, and I know of no way of demon
strating the non-existence of spirits.

It may be that man lives forever, and it may be that what
we call life ends with what we call death. I have had no
experience beyond the grave, and very little back of birth.
Consequently, I cannot say that I have a belief on this sub
ject. I can simply say that I have no knowledge on this
subject, and know of no fact in nature that I would use
as the corner-stone of a belief.

Question. Do you believe in the resurrection of the body ?

Answer. My answer to that is about the same as to the
other question. I do not believe in the resurrection of the
body. It seems to me an exceedingly absurd belief — and
yet I do not know. I am told, and I suppose I believe,
that the atoms that are in me have been in many other
people, and in many other forms of life, and I suppose at
death the atoms forming my body go back to the earth
and are used in countless forms. These facts, or what I
suppose to be facts, render a belief in the resurrection of
the body impossible to me.

INTERVIEWS. 513

We get atoms to support our body from what we eat.
Now, if a cannibal should eat a missionary, and certain
atoms belonging to the missionary should be used by the
cannibal in his body, and the cannibal should then die
while the atoms of the missionary formed part of his flesh,
to whom would these atoms belong in the morning of the
resurrection?

Then again, science teaches us that there is a kind of
balance between animal and vegetable life, and that prob
ably all men and all animals have been trees, and all trees
have been animals ; so that the probability is that the atoms
that are now in us have been, as I said in the first place,
in millions of other people. Now, if this be so, there can
not be atoms enough in the morning of the resurrection,
because, if the atoms are given to the first men, that
belonged to the first men when they died, there will cer
tainly be no atoms for the last men.

Consequently, I am compelled to say that I do not believe
in the resurrection of the body.*

TOLSTOY AND LITERATURE.

Question. What is your opinion of Count Leo Tolstoy ?

Answer. I have read Tolstoy. He is a curious mixture
of simplicity and philosophy. He seems to have been car
ried away by his conception of religion. He is a non-
resistant to such a degree that he asserts that he would not,
if attacked, use violence to preserve his own life or the life
of a child. Upon this question he is undoubtedly insane.

So he is trying to live the life of a peasant and doing
without the comforts of life ! This is not progress. Civili
zation should not endeavor to bring about equality by
making the rich poor or the comfortable miserable. This
will not add to the pleasures of the rich, neither will it feed
the hungry, nor clothe the naked.

The civilized wealthy should endeavor to help the needy,

* From notes found arnong Colonel Ingersoll's papers.

514 INTERVIEWS.

and help them in a sensible way, not through charity, but
through industry; through giving them opportunities to
take care of themselves. I do not believe in the equality
that is to be reached by pulling the successful down, but I
do believe in the civilization that tends to raise the fallen
and assists those in need.

Should we all follow Tolstoy's example and live accord
ing to his philosophy the world would go back to barbarism ;
art would be lost ; that which elevates and refines would be
destroyed ; the voice of music would become silent, and
man would be satisfied with a rag, a hut, a crust. We do
not want the equality of savages.

No, in civilization there must be differences, because there
is a constant movement forward. The human race cannot
advance in line. There will be pioneers, there will be the
great army, and there will be countless stragglers. It is not
necessary for the whole army to go back to the stragglers, it
is better that the army should march forward toward the
pioneers.

It may be that the sale of Tolstoy's works is on the
increase in America, but certainly the principles of Tolstoy
are gaining no foothold here. We are not a nation of non-
resistants. We believe in defending our homes. Nothing
can exceed the insanity of non-resistance. This doctrine
leaves virtue naked and clothes vice in armor; it gives
every weapon to the wrong and takes every shield from the
right. I believe that goodness has the right of self-defence.
As a matter of fact, vice should be left naked and virtue
should have all the weapons. The good should not be a
flock of sheep at the mercy of every wolf. So, I do not
accept Tolstoy's theory of equality as a sensible solution of
the labor problem.

The hope of this world is that men will become civilized
to that degree that they cannot be happy while they know
that thousands of their fellow-men are miserable.

INTERVIEWS. 515

The time will come when the man who dwells in a
palace will not be happy if Want sits upon the steps at his
door. No matter how well he is clothed himself he will
not enjoy his robes if he sees others in rags, and the time
will come when the intellect of this world will be directed
by the heart of this world, and when men of genius and
power will do what they can for the benefit of their fellow-
men. All this is to come through civilization, through
experience.

Men, after a time, will find the worthlessness of great
wealth ; they will find it is not splendid to excite envy in
others. So, too, they will find that the happiness of the
human race is so interdependent and so interwoven, so
intermingled with their own interests, that finally the
interest of humanity will be the interest of the individual.

I know that at present the lives of many millions are
practically without value, but in my judgment, the world
is growing a little better every day. On the average, men
have more comforts, better clothes, better food, more books
and more of the luxuries of life than ever before.

Question. It is said that properly to appreciate Rousseau,
Voltaire, Hugo and other French classics, a thorough
knowledge of the French language is necessary. What is
your opinion ?

Answer. No; to say that a knowledge of French is
necessary in order to appreciate Voltaire or Hugo is non
sensical. For a student anxious to study the works of
these masters, to set to work to learn the language of the
writers would be like my building a flight of stairs to go
down to supper. The stairs are already there. Some
other person built them for me and others who choose to
use them.

Men have spent their lives in the study of the French
and English, and have given us Voltaire, Hugo and all
other works of French classics, perfect in sentiment and

516 INTERVIEWS.

construction as the originals are. Macaulay was a great
linguist, but he wrote no better than Shakespeare, and
Burns wrote perfect English, though virtually uneducated.
Good writing is a matter of genius and heart ; reading is
application and judgment.

I am of the opinion that Wilbur's English translation of
" Les Miserables " is better than Hugo's original, as a
literary masterpiece.

What a grand novel that is ! What characters, Jean
Valjean and Javert !

Question. Which in your opinion is the greatest English
novel ?

Answer. I think the greatest novel ever written in
English is "A Tale of Two Cities," by Dickens. It is full of
philosophy ; its incidents are dramatically grouped. Sidney
Carton, the hero, is a marvelous creation and a marvelous
character. Lucie Manette is as delicate as the perfume of
wild violets, and cell 105, North Tower, and scenes enacted
there, almost touch the region occupied by "Lear." There,
too, Mme. Defarge is the impersonation of the French
Revolution, and the nobleman of the chateau with his
fine features changed to stone, and the messenger who sat
at Tellson's Bank gnawing the rust from his nails ;
all these are the creations of genius, and these children of
fiction will live as long as Imagination spreads her many
colored wings in the mind of man.

Question. What do you think of Pope ?

Answer. Pope! Alexander Pope, that word-carpenter,
a mechanical poet, or stay — rather a " digital poet ; " that fits
him best — one of those fellows who counts his fingers to
see that his verse is in perfect rhythm. His " Essay on
Man " strikes me as being particularly defective. For
instance :

"All discord, harmony not understood,
All partial evil, universal good,"

INTERVIEWS. 517

from the first epistle of his "Essay on Man." Anything
that is evil cannot by any means be good, and anything
partial cannot be universal.

We see in libraries ponderous tomes labelled " Burke's
Speeches." No person ever seems to read them, but he is
now regarded as being in his day a great speaker, because
now no one has pluck enough to read his speeches. Why,
for thirty years Burke was known in Parliament as the
" Dinner Bell " — whenever he rose to speak, everybody

Went to dinner. — The Evening Express, Buffalo, New York, October 6, 1892.

WOMAN IN POLITICS.

Question. What do you think of the influence of women
in politics ?

Answer. I think the influence of women is always good
in politics, as in everything else. I think it the duty of
every woman to ascertain what she can in regard to her
country, including its history, laws and customs. Woman
above all others is a teacher. She, above all others, deter
mines the character of children; that is to say, of men and
women.

There is not the slightest danger of women becoming too
intellectual or knowing too much. Neither is there any
danger of men knowing too much. At least, I know of no
men who are in immediate peril from that source. I am
a firm believer in the equal rights of human beings, and no
matter what I think as to what woman should or should
not do, she has the same right to decide for herself that I
have to decide for myself. If women wish to vote, if they
wish to take part in political matters, if they wish to run for
office, I shall do nothing to interfere with their rights.
I most cheerfully admit that my political rights are only
equal to theirs.

There was a time when physical force or brute strength
gave pre-eminence. The savage chief occupied his posi-

5l8 INTERVIEWS.

tion by virtue of his muscle, of his courage, on account of
the facility with which he wielded a club. As long as
nations depend simply upon brute force, the man, in time
of war, is, of necessity, of more importance to the nation
than woman, and as the dispute is to be settled by strength,
by force, those who have the strength and force naturally
settle it. As the world becomes civilized, intelligence
slowly takes the place of force, conscience restrains muscle,
reason enters the arena, and the gladiator retires.

A little while ago the literature of the world was pro
duced by men, and men were not only the writers, but the
readers. At that time the novels were coarse and vulgar.
Now the readers of fiction are women, and they demand
that which they can read, and the result is that women
have become great writers. The women have changed our
literature, and the change has been good.

In every field where woman has become a competitor
of man she has either become, or given evidence that she is
to become, his equal. My own opinion is that woman is
naturally the equal of man and that in time, that is to say,
when she has had the opportunity and the training, she
will produce in the world of art as great pictures, as great
statues, and in the world of literature as great books,
dramas and poems as man has produced or will produce.

There is nothing very hard to understand in the politics
of a country. The general principles are for the most part
simple. It is only in the application that the complexity
arises, and woman, I think, by nature, is as well fitted to
understand these things as man. In short, I have no prej
udice on this subject. At first, women will be more con
servative than men ; and this is natural. Women have,
through many generations, acquired the habit of submission,
of acquiescence. They have practiced what may be called
the slave virtues — obedience, humility — so that some time
will be required for them to become accustomed to the new

INTERVIEWS. 519

order of things, to the exercise of greater freedom, acting
in accordance with perceived obligation, independently of
authority.

So I say equal rights, equal education, equal advantages.
I hope that woman will not continue to be the serf of su
perstition ; that she will not be the support of the church
and priest ; that she will not stand for the conservation of
superstition, but that in the east of her mind the sun of
progress will rise.

Question. In your lecture on Voltaire you made a remark
about the government of ministers, and you stated that if
the ministers of the city of New York had the power to
make the laws most people would prefer to live in a well
regulated penitentiary. What do you mean by this ?

Answer. Well, as a rule, ministers are quite severe. They
have little patience with human failures. They are taught,
and they believe and they teach, that man is absolutely
master of his own fate. Besides, they are believers in the
inspiration of the Scriptures, and the laws of the Old Test
ament are exceedingly severe. Nearly every offence was
punished by death. Every offence was regarded as treason
against Jehovah.

In the Pentateuch there is no pity. If a man committed
some offence justice was not satisfied with his punishment,
but proceeded to destroy his wife and children. Jehovah
seemed to think that crime was in the blood ; that it was
not sufficient to kill the criminal, but to prevent future
crimes you should kill his wife and babes. The reading
of the Old Testament is calculated to harden the heart, to
drive the angel of pity from the breast and to make man
a religious savage. The clergy, as a rule, do not take
a broad and liberal view of things. They judge every
offence by what they consider would be the result if every
body committed the same offence. They do not under
stand that even vice creates obstructions for itself, and

520

INTERVIEWS.

that there is something in the nature of crime the tendency
of which is to defeat crime, and I might add in this place
that the same seems to be true of excessive virtue. As a
rule, the clergy clamor with great zeal for the execution of
cruel laws.

Let me give an instance in point : In the time of George
III., in England, there were two hundred and twenty -three
offences punishable with death. From time to time this
cruel code was changed by Act of Parliament, yet no
bishop sitting in the House of Lords ever voted in favor
of any one of these measures. The bishops always voted
for death, for blood, against mercy and against the repeal
of capital punishment. During all these years there were
some twenty thousand or more of the established clergy,
and yet, according to John Bright, no voice was ever
raised in any Episcopal pulpit against the infamous crim
inal code.

Another thing : The orthodox clergy teach that man is
totally depraved ; that his inclination is evil ; that his
tendency is toward the Devil. Starting from this as a
foundation, of course every clergyman believes every bad
thing said of everybody else. So, when some man is
charged with a crime, the clergyman taking into consid
eration the fact that the man is totally depraved, takes it
for granted that he must be guilty. I am not saying this
for the purpose of exciting prejudice against the clergy.
I am simply showing what is the natural result of a cer
tain creed, of a belief in universal depravity, of a belief in
the power and influence of a personal Devil. If the clergy
could have their own way they would endeavor to reform
the world by law. They would re-enact the old statutes
of the Puritans. Joy would be a crime. Love would be
an offence. Every man with a smile on his face would be
suspected, and a dimple in the cheek would be a demonstra
tion of depravity.

INTERVIEWS. 521

In the trial of a cause it is natural for a clergyman to
start with the proposition, " The defendant is guilty ; " and
then he says to himself, " Let him prove himself innocent."
The man who has not been poisoned with the creed starts
out with the proposition, "The defendant is innocent ; let
the State prove that he is guilty." Consequently, I say
that if I were defending a man whom I knew to be inno
cent, I would not have a clergyman on the jury if I could

help it. — New York Advertiser, December 24, 1893.

SPIRITUALISM.

Question. Have you investigated Spiritualism, and what
has been your experience ?

Answer. A few years ago I paid some attention to what is
called Spiritualism, and was present when quite mysterious
things were supposed to have happened. The most notable
seance that I attended was given by Slade, at which slate-
writing was done. Two slates were fastened together, with
a pencil between them, and on opening the slates certain
writing was found. When the writing was done it was
impossible to tell. So, I have been present when it was
claimed that certain dead people had again clothed them
selves in flesh and were again talking in the old way. So, I
have attended seances where information was given by raps.
In one instance, I think, George Washington claimed to be
present. On the same evening Shakespeare put in an ap
pearance. It was hard to recognize Shakespeare from what
the spirit said, still I was assured by the medium that there
was no mistake as to identity.

Question. Can you offer any explanation of the extraor
dinary phenomena such as Henry J. Newton has had pro
duced at his own house under his own supervision ?

Answer. In the first place, I don't believe that anything
such as you describe has ever happened. I do not believe
that a medium ever passed into and out of a triple-locked

522 INTERVIEWS.

iron cage. Neither do I believe that any spirits were able
to throw shoes and wraps out of the cage ; neither do I be
lieve that any apparitions ever rose from the floor, or that
anything you relate has ever happened. The best explana
tion I can give of these wonderful occurrences is the follow
ing : A little boy and girl were standing in a doorway hold
ing hands. A gentleman passing, stopped for a moment
and said to the little girl: " What relation is the little boy
to you?" and she replied, "We had the same father and
we had the same mother, but I am not his sister and he is
not my brother." This at first seemed to be quite a puzzle,
but it was exceedingly plain when the answer was known.
The little girl lied.

Question. Have you had any experience with spirit pho
tography, spirit physicians or spirit lawyers?

Answer. I was shown at one time several pictures said to
be the photographs of living persons surrounded by the
photographs of spirits. I examined them very closely, and
I found evidence in the photographs themselves that they
were spurious. I took it for granted that light is the same
everywhere, and that it obeys the angle of incidence in all
worlds and at all times. In looking at the spirit photo
graphs I found, for instance, that in the photograph of the
living person the shadows fell to the right, and that in the
photographs of the ghosts, or spirits, supposed to have been
surrounding the living person at the time the picture was
taken, the shadows did not fall in the same direction, some
times in the opposite direction, never at the same angle even
when the general direction was the same. This demon
strated that the photographs of the spirits and of the living
persons were not taken at the same time. So much for
photographs.

I have had no experience with spirit physicians. I was
once told by a lawyer who came to employ me in a will
case, that a certain person had made a will giving a large

INTERVIEWS. 523

amount of money for the purpose of spreading the gospel of
Spiritualism, but that the will had been lost and that an
effort was then being made to find it, and they wished to
take certain action pending the search, and wanted my assist
ance. I said to him : " If Spiritualism be true, why not ask
the man who made the will what it was and also what has
become of it. If you can find that out from the departed,
I will gladly take a retainer in the case; otherwise,! must
decline." I have had no other experience with the lawyers.

Question. If you were to witness phenomena that seemed
inexplicable by natural laws, would you be inclined to favor
Spiritualism ?

Answer. I would not. If I should witness phenomena
that I could not explain, I would leave the phenomena un
explained. I would not explain them because I did not
understand them, and say they were or are produced by
spirits. That is no explanation, and, after admitting that
we do not know and that we cannot explain, why should
we proceed to explain ? I have seen Mr. Kellar do things
for which I can not account. Why should I say that he
has the assistance of spirits ? All I have a right to say is
that I know nothing about how he does them. So I am com
pelled to say with regard to many spiritualistic feats, that I
am ignorant of the ways and means. At the same time, I
do not believe that there is anything supernatural in the
universe.

Question. What is your opinion of Spiritualism and
Spiritualists ?

Answer. I think the Spiritualism of the present day is
certainly in advance of the Spiritualism of several cen
turies ago. Persons who now deny Spiritualism and hold
it in utter contempt insist that some eighteen or nineteen
centuries ago it had possession of the world ; that miracles
were of daily occurrence ; that demons, devils, fiends, took
possession of human beings, lived in their bodies, domina-

524 INTERVIEWS.

ted their minds. They believe, too, that devils took pos
session of the bodies of animals. They also insist that a
wish could multiply fish. And, curiously enough, the
Spiritualists of our time have but little confidence in the
phenomena of eighteen hundred years ago ; and, curiously
enough, those who believe in the Spiritualism of eighteen
hundred years ago deny the Spiritualism of to-day. I
think the Spiritualists of to-day have far more evidence of
their phenomena than those who believe in the wonderful
things of eighteen centuries ago. The Spiritualists of to
day have living witnesses, which is something. I know a
great man}' Spiritualists that are exceedingly good people,
and are doing what they can to make the world better.
But I think they are mistaken.

Question. Do you believe in spirit entities, whether man-
ifestible or not ?

Answer. I believe there is such a thing as matter. I
believe there is a something called force. The difference
between force and matter I do not know. So there is a
something called consciousness. Whether we call con
sciousness an entity or not makes no difference as to what
it really is. There is something that hears, sees and feels, a
something that takes cognizance of what happens in what we
call the outward world. No matter whether we call this
something matter or spirit, it is something that we do not
know, to say the least of it, all about. We cannot understand
what matter is. It defies us, and defies definitions. So,
with what we call spirit, we are in utter ignorance of what
it is. We have some little conception of what we mean by
it, and of what others mean, but as to what it really is no
one knows. It makes no difference whether we call our
selves Materialists or Spiritualists, we believe in all there
is, no matter what you call it. If we call it all matter,
then we believe that matter can think and hope and dream.
If we call it all spirit, then we believe that spirit has force,

o . -^

-S*! "^ £•

*; ^ §

^-^ • ***

•«-o

devils took pos-
a.lso ins

>; and, curiously

m of t ^
more ev,

^ I know a
good people,
ing what. : ke the world b;

arc ;:;;
Do yea vhether man*

[ believe thing as matter. I

etis a ,rce. The difference

'ce a; , So there

Whether we call con-
to what
• I feels, a
what we
we call
it we do not
unot understand

svhat we mean by
ther we

INTERVIEWS. 525

that it offers a resistance ; in other words, that it is, in one
of its aspects, what we call matter. I cannot believe that
everything can be accounted for by motion or by what we
call force, because there is something that recognizes
force. There is something that compares, that thinks, that
remembers; there is something that suffers and enjoys;
there is something that each one calls himself or herself,
that is inexplicable to himself or herself, and it makes no
difference whether we call this something mind or soul,
effect or entity, it still eludes us, and all the words we
have coined for the purpose of expressing our knowledge
of this something, after all, express only our desire to
know, and our efforts to ascertain. It may be that if we
would ask some minister, some one who has studied
theology, he would give us a perfect definition. The
scientists know nothing about it, and I know of no one
who does, unless it be a theologian. — The Globe-Democrat, st.

Louis, Mo., 1893.

PLAYS AND PLAYERS.

Question. What place does the theatre hold among the
arts?

Answer. Nearly all the arts unite in the theatre, and it is
the result of the best, the highest, the most artistic,that man
can do.

In the first place, there must be the dramatic poet. Dra
matic poetry is the subtlest, profoundest, the most intellect
ual, the most passionate and artistic of all. Then the stage
must be prepared, and there is work for the architect, the
painter and sculptor. Then the actors appear, and they
must be gifted with imagination, with a high order of in
telligence; they must have sympathies quick and deep,
natures capable of the greatest emotion, dominated by
passion. They must have impressive presence, and all that
is manly should meet and unite in the actor ; all that is

526 INTERVIEWS.

womanly, tender, intense and admirable should be lavishly
bestowed on the actress. In addition to all this, actors
should have the art of being natural.

Let me explain what I mean by being natural. When I
say that an actor is natural, I mean that he appears to act in
accordance with his ideal, in accordance with his nature, and
that he is not an imitator or a copyist — that he is not made
up of shreds and patches taken from others, but that all he
does flows from interior fountains and is consistent with his
own nature, all having . in a marked degree the highest
characteristics of the man. That is what I mean by being
natural.

The great actor must be acquainted with the heart, must
know the motives, ends, objects and desires that control the
thoughts and acts of men. He must be familiar with many
people, including the lowest and the highest, so that he may
give to others, clothed with flesh and blood, the characters
born of the poet's brain. The great actor must know
the relations that exist between passion and voice, gesture
and emphasis, expression and pose. He must speak not
only with his voice, but with his body. The great actor
must be master of many arts.

Then comes the musician. The theatre has always been
the home of music, and this music must be appropriate ;
must, or should, express or supplement what happens on
the stage ; should furnish rest and balm for minds over
wrought with tragic deeds. To produce a great play, and
put it worthily upon the stage, involves most arts, many
sciences and nearly all that is artistic, poetic and dramatic
in the mind of man.

Question. Should the drama teach lessons and discuss
social problems, or should it give simply intellectual pleasure
and furnish amusement ?

Answer. Every great play teaches many lessons and
touches nearly all social problems. But the great play does

INTERVIEWS. 527

this by indirection. Every beautiful thought is a teacher ;
every noble line speaks to the brain and heart. Beauty,
proportion, melody, suggest moral beauty, proportion in
conduct and melody in life. In a great play the relations of
the various characters, their objects, the means adopted for
their accomplishment, must suggest, and in a certain sense
solve or throw light on many social problems, so that the
drama teaches lessons, discusses social problems and gives
intellectual pleasure.

The stage should not be dogmatic ; neither should its ob
ject be directly to enforce a moral. The great thing for the
drama to do, and the great thing it has done, and is doing,
is to cultivate the imagination. This is of the utmost im
portance. The civilization of man depends upon the
development, not only of the intellect, but of the imagina
tion. Most crimes of violence are committed by people who
are destitute of imagination. People without imagination
made most of the cruel and infamous creeds. They were
the persecutors and destroyers of their fellow-men. By
cultivating the imagination, the stage becomes one of the
greatest teachers. It produces the climate in which the better
feelings grow ; it is the home of the ideal. All beautiful
things tend to the civilization of man. The great statues
plead for proportion in life, the great symphonies suggest
the melody of conduct, and the great plays cultivate the
heart and brain.

Question. What do you think of the French drama as
compared with the English, morally and artistically con
sidered ?

Answer. The modern French drama, so far as I am ac
quainted with it, is a disease. It deals with the abnormal.
It is fashioned after Balzac. It exhibits moral tumors,
mental cancers and all kinds of abnormal fungi, — excres
cences. Everything is stood on its head ; virtue lives in
the brothel ; the good are the really bad and the worst are,

528 INTERVIEWS.

after all, the best. It portrays tlie exceptional, and mistakes
the scum-covered bayou for the great river. The French
dramatists seem to think that the ceremony of marriage
sows the seed of vice. They are always conveying the idea
that the virtuous are uninteresting, rather stupid, without
sense and spirit enough to take advantage of their privileges.
Between the greatest French plays and the greatest English
plays of course there is no comparison. If a Frenchman
had written the plays of Shakespeare, Desdemona would have
been guilty, Isabella would have ransomed her brother at
the Duke's price, Juliet would have married the County Paris,
run away from him, and joined Romeo in Mantua, and
Miranda would have listened coquettishly to the words of
Caliban. The French are exceedingly artistic. They un
derstand stage effects, love the climax, delight in surprises,
especially in the improbable; but their dramatists lack
sympathy and breadth of treatment. They are provincial.
With them France is the world. They know little of other
countries. Their plays do not touch the universal.

Question. What are your feelings in reference to idealism
on the stage?

Answer. The stage ought to be the home of the ideal; in
a word, the imagination should have full sway. The great
dramatist is a creator ; he is the sovereign, and governs his
own world. The realist is only a copyist. He does not
need genius. All he wants is industry and the trick of
imitation. On the stage, the real should be idealized, the
ordinary should be transfigured ; that is, the deeper mean
ings of things should be given. As we make music of
common air, and statues of stone, so the great dramatist
should make life burst into blossom on the stage. A lot of
words, facts, odds and ends divided into acts and scenes do
not make a play. These things are like old pieces of broken
iron that need the heat of the furnace so that they may be
moulded into shape. Genius is that furnace, and in its

INTERVIEWS. 529

heat and glow and flarne these pieces, these fragments, be
come molten and are cast into noble and heroic forms.
Realism degrades and impoverishes the stage.

Question. What attributes should an actor have to be
really great ?

Answer. Intelligence, imagination, presence ; a mobile and
impressive face ; a body that lends itself to every mood in
appropriate pose, one that is oak or willow, at will ; self-
possession ; absolute ease ; a voice capable of giving every
shade of meaning and feeling, an intuitive knowledge or
perception of proportion, and above all, the actor should be
so sincere that he loses himself in the character he portrays.
Such an actor will grow intellectually and morally. The
great actor should strive to satisfy himself — to reach his
own ideal.

Question. Do you enjoy Shakespeare more in the library
than Shakespeare interpreted by actors now on the boards ?

Answer. I enjoy Shakespeare everywhere. I think it
would give me pleasure to hear those wonderful lines
spoken even by phonographs. But Shakespeare is greatest
and best when grandly put upon the stage. There you know
the connection, the relation, the circumstances, and these
bring out the appropriateness and the perfect meaning of
the text. Nobody in this country now thinks of Hamlet
without thinking of Booth. For this generation at least,
Booth is Hamlet. It is impossible for me to read the words
of Sir Toby without seeing the face of W. F. Owen. Brutus
is Davenport, Cassius is Lawrence Barrett, and Lear will be
associated always in my mind with Edwin Forrest. Lady
Macbeth is to me Adelaide Ristori, the greatest actress I
ever saw. If I understood music perfectly, I would much
rather hear Seidl's orchestra play "Tristan," or hear
Remeuyi's matchless rendition of Schubert's "Ava Maria,"
than to read the notes.

Most people love the theatre. Everything about it from

530 INTERVIEWS.

stage to gallery attracts and fascinates. The mysterious
realm, behind the scenes, from which emerge kings and
clowns, villains and fools, heroes and lovers, and in which
they disappear, is still a fairyland. As long as man is man
he will enjoy the love and laughter, the tears and rapture of
the mimic world.

Question. Is it because we lack men of genius or because
our life is too material that no truly great American plays
have been written ?

Answer. No great play has been written since Shakes
peare ; that is, no play has been written equal to his. But
there is the same reason for that in all other countries, in
cluding England, that there is in this country, and that rea
son is that Shakespeare has had no equal.

America has not failed because life in the Republic is
too material. Germany and France, and, in fact, all other
nations, have failed in the same way. In the sense in
which I am speaking, Germany has produced no great
play.

In the dramatic world Shakespeare stands alone. Com
pared with him, even the classic is childish.

There is plenty of material for plays. The Republic has
lived a great play — a great poem — a most marvelous
drama. Here, on our soil, have happened some of the
greatest events in the history of the world.

All human passions have been and are in full play here,
and here as elsewhere, can be found the tragic, the comic,
the beautiful, the poetic, the tears, the smiles, the lamenta
tions and the laughter that are the necessary warp and woof
with which to weave the living tapestries that we call
plays.

We are beginning. We have found that American plays
must be American in spirit. We are tired of imitations and
adaptations. We want plays worthy of the great Republic.
Some good work has recently been done, giving great hope

INTERVIEWS. 530

for the future. Of course the realistic comes first ; afterward
the ideal. But here in America, as in all other lands, love
is the eternal passion that will forever hold the stage.
Around that everything else will move. It is the sun. All
other passions are secondary. Their orbits are determined
by the central force from which they receive their light
and meaning.

Love, however, must be kept pure.

The great dramatist is, of necessity, a believer in virtue, in
honesty, in courage and in the nobility of human nature.
He must know that there are men and women that even a
God could not corrupt ; such knowledge, such feeling, is the
foundation, and the only foundation, that can support the
splendid structure, the many pillared stories and the swell
ing dome of the great drama. — The New York Dramatic Mirror, De
cember 26, 1891.

WOMAN.

It takes a hundred men to make an encampment, but one
woman can make a home. I not only admire woman as
the most beautiful object ever created, but I reverence her
as the redeeming glory of humanity, the sanctuary of all
the virtues, the pledge of all perfect qualities of heart and
head. It is not just or right to lay the sins of men at the
feet of women. It is because women are so much better
than men that their faults are considered greater.

The one thing in this world that is constant, the one peak
that rises above all clouds, the one window in which the
light forever burns, the one star that darkness cannot
quench, is woman's love. It rises to the greatest heights, it
sinks to the lowest depths, it forgives the most cruel in
juries. It is perennial of life, and grows in every climate.
Neither coldness nor neglect, harshness nor cruelty, can ex
tinguish it. A woman's love is the perfume of the
heart.

532 INTERVIEWS.

celebrated with as much enthusiasm as ever all through the
West, and the feeling of rejoicing over the anniversary of
the day is as great and strong as ever. The people are tired
of celebrating with a great noise and I am glad of it.

Question. What do you think of the Congress of Religions,
to be held in Chicago during the World's Fair.

Answer. It will do good, if they will honestly compare
their creeds so that each one can see just how foolish all the
rest are. They ought to compare their sacred books, and
their miracles, and their mythologies, and if they do so they
will probably see that ignorance is the mother of them all.
Let them have a Congress, by all means, and let them show
how priests live on the labor of those they deceive. It will
do good.

Question. Do you think Cleveland's course as to appoint
ments has strengthened him with the people?

Answer. Patronage is a two-edged sword with very
little handle. It takes an exceedingly clever President to
strengthen himself by its exercise. When a man is running
for President the twenty men in every town who expect to
be made postmaster are for him heart and soul. Only one
can get the office, and the nineteen who do not, feel outraged,
and the lucky one is mad on account of the delay. So
twenty friends are lost with one place.

Question. Is the Age of Chivalry dead ?

Answer. The " Age of Chivalry " never existed except in
the imagination. The Age of Chivalry was the age of
cowardice and crime.

There is more chivalry to-day than ever. Men have a
better, a clearer idea of justice, and pay their debts better,
and treat their wives and children better than ever before.
The higher and better qualities of the soul have more to
do with the average life. To-day men have greater admira
tion and respect for women, greater regard for the social and
domestic obligations than their fathers had.

INTERVIEWS. 533

Question. What led you to begin lecturing on your present
subjects, and what was your first lecture?

Answer. My first lecture was entitled "Progress." I be
gan lecturing because I thought the creeds of the orthodox
church false and horrible, and because I thought the Bible
cruel and absurd, and because I like intellectual liberty. —

New York, May 5, 1893.

SUNDAY A DAY OF PLEASURE.

Question. What do you think of the religious spirit that
seeks to regulate by legislation the manner in which the
people of this country shall spend their Sundays ?

Answer. The church is not willing to stand alone, not
willing to base its influence on reason and on the character
of its members. It seeks the aid of the State. The cross
is in partnership with the sword. People should spend
Sundays as they do other days ; that is to say, as they
please. No one has the right to do anything on Monday
that interferes with the rights of his neighbors, and every
one has the right to do anything he pleases on Sunday
that does not interfere with the rights of his neighbors.
Sunday is a day of rest, not of religion. We are under
obligation to do right on all days.

Nothing can be more absurd than the idea that any par
ticular space of time is sacred. Everything in nature goes
on the same on Sunday as on other days, and if beyond
nature there be a God, then God works on Sunday as he
does on all other days. There is no rest in nature. There
is perpetual activity in every possible direction. The old
idea that God made the world and then rested, is idiotic.
There were two reasons given to the Hebrews for keeping
the Sabbath — one because Jehovah rested on that day, the
other because the Hebrews were brought out of Egypt.
The first reason, we know, is false, and the second reason
is good only for the Hebrews. According to the Bible,

534 INTERVIEWS.

Sunday, or rather the Sabbath, was not for the world, but
for the Hebrews, and the Hebrews alone. Our Sunday is
pagan and is the day of the sun, as Monday is the day of
the moon. All our day names are pagan. I am opposed
to all Sunday legislation.

Question. Why should Sunday be observed otherwise
than as a day of recreation ?

Answer. Sunday is a day of recreation, or should be ; a
day for the laboring man to rest, a day to visit museums
and libraries, a day to look at pictures, a day to visit the
shore of the sea, a day for picnics, a day to get acquainted
with your wife and children, a day for poetry and art, a
day on which to read old letters and to meet friends, a day
to cultivate the amenities of life, a day for those who live
in tenements to feel the soft grass beneath their feet. In
short, Sunday should be a day of joy. The church en
deavors to fill it with gloom and sadness, with stupid ser
mons and dyspeptic theology.

Nothing could be more cowardly than the effort to com
pel the observance of the Sabbath by law. We of America
have outgrown the childishness of the last century ; we
laugh at the superstitions of our fathers. We have made
up our minds to be as happy as we can be, knowing that
the way to be happy is to make others so, that the time to
be happy is now, whether that now is Sunday or any other
day in the week.

Question. Under a Federal Constitution guaranteeing
civil and religious liberty, are the so-called " Blue Laws "
constitutional ?

Answer. No, they are not. But the probability is that
the Supreme Courts of most of the States would decide the
other way. And yet all these laws are clearly contrary to
the spirit of the Federal Constitution and the constitutions
of most of the States.

I hope to live until all these foolish laws are repealed

INTERVIEWS. 535

and until we are in the highest and noblest sense a free
people. And by free I mean each having the right to do
anything that does not interfere with the rights or with the
happiness of another. I want to see the time when we live
for this world and when all shall endeavor to increase, by
education, by reason, and by persuasion, the sum of human

happiness. — New York Times, July 21, 1893.

THE PARLIAMENT OF RELIGIONS.

Question. The Parliament of Religions was called with a
view to discussing the great religions of the world on the
broad platform of tolerance. Supposing this to have been
accomplished, what effect is it likely to have on the future
of creeds ?

Answer. It was a good thing to get the representatives of
all creeds to meet and tell their beliefs. The tendency, I
think, is to do away with prejudice, with provincialism,
with egotism. We know that the difference between the
great religions, so far as belief is concerned, amounts to
but little. Their gods have different names, but in other
respects they differ but little. They are all cruel and
ignorant.

Question. Do you think likely that the time is coming
when all the religions of the world will be treated with the
liberality that is now characterizing the attitude of one
sect toward another in Christendom ?

Answer. Yes, because I think that all religions will be
found to be of equal authority, and because I believe that
the supernatural will be discarded and that man will give
up his vain and useless efforts to get back of nature — to
answer the questions of whence and whither? As a matter
of fact, the various sects do not love one another. The
keenest hatred is religious hatred. The most malicious
malice is found in the hearts of those who love their
enemies.

INTERVIEWS.

Question. Bishop Newman, in replying to a learned Bud
dhist at the Parliament of Religions, said that Buddhism
had given to the world no helpful literature, no social
system, and no heroic virtues. Is this true?

Answer. Bishop Newman is a very prejudiced man.
Probably he got his information from the missionaries.
Buddha was undoubtedly a great teacher. Long before
Christ lived Buddha taught the brotherhood of man. He
said that intelligence was the only lever capable of raising
mankind. His followers, to say the least of them, are as
good as the followers of Christ. Bishop Newman is a
Methodist — a follower of John Wesley — and he has the
prejudices of the sect to which he belongs. We must
remember that all prejudices are honest.

Question. Is Christian society, or rather society in Chris
tian countries, cursed with fewer robbers, assassins, and
thieves, proportionately, than countries where "heathen"
religions predominate?

Answer. I think not. I do not believe that there are
more lynchings, more mob murders in India or Turkey
or Persia than in some Christian States of the great
Republic. Neither will you find more train robbers, more
forgers, more thieves in heathen lands than in Christian
countries. Here the jails are full, the penitentiaries are
crowded, and the hangmen are busy. All over Christen
dom, as many assert, crime is on the increase, going hand
in hand with poverty. The truth is, that some of the
wisest and best men are filled with apprehension for the
future, but I believe in the race and have confidence in man.

Question. How can society be so reconstructed that all
this horrible suffering, resultant from poverty and its
natural associate, crime, may be abolished, or at least re
duced to a minimum ?

Answer. In the first place we should stop supporting the
useless. The burden of superstition should be taken from

INTERVIEWS. 537

the shoulders of industry. In the next place men should
stop bowing to wealth instead of worth. Men should be
judged by what they do, by what they are, instead of by
the property they have.. Only those able to raise and
educate children should have them. Children should be
better born — better educated. The process of regeneration
will be slow, but it will be sure. The religion of our day
is supported by the worst, by the most dangerous people
in society. I do not allude to murderers or burglars, or
even to the little thieves. I mean those who debauch
courts and legislatures and elections — those who make
millions by legal fraud.

Question. What do you think of the Theosophists ? Are
they sincere — have they any real basis for their psychologi
cal theories?

Answer. The Theosophists may be sincere. I do not
know. But I am perfectly satisfied that their theories are
without any foundation in fact — that their doctrines are as
unreal as their " astral bodies," and as absurd as a contra
diction in mathematics. We have had vagaries and theories
enough. We need the religion of the real, the faith that
rests on fact. Let us turn our attention to this world —

the World in which we live. — New York Herald, September, 1893.

CLEVELAND'S HAWAIIAN POLICY.

Question. Colonel, what do you think about Mr. Cleve
land's Hawaiian policy ?

Answer. I think it exceedingly laughable and a little
dishonest — with the further fault that it is wholly uncon
stitutional. This is not a one-man Government, and while
Liliuokalani may be Queen, Cleveland is certainly not a
king. The worst thing about the whole matter, as it
appears to me, is the bad faith that was shown by Mr.
Cleveland — the double-dealing. He sent Mr. Willis as
Minister to the Provisional Government and by that act

538 INTERVIEWS.

admitted the existence, and the rightful existence, of the
Provisional Government of the Sandwich Islands.

When Mr. Willis started he gave him two letters. One
was addressed to Dole, President of the Provisional Govern
ment, in which he addressed Dole as " Great and good
friend," and at the close, being a devout Christian, he
asked "God to take care of Dole." This was the first
letter. The letter of one President to another; of one
friend to another. The second letter was addressed to Mr.
Willis, in which Mr. Willis was told to upset Dole at the
first opportunity and put the deposed Queen back on her
throne. This may be diplomacy, but it is no kin to
honesty.

In my judgment.it is the worst thing connected with the
Hawaiian affair. What must "the great and good" Dole
think of our great and bad President ? What must other
nations think when they read the two letters and mentally
exclaim, "Look upon this and then upon that"? I think
Mr. Cleveland has acted arrogantly, foolishly, and unfairly.
I am in favor of obtaining the Sandwich Islands — of course
by fair means. I favor this policy because I want my
country to become a power in the Pacific. All my life I
have wanted this country to own the West Indies, the
Bermudas, the Bahamas and Barbadoes. They are our
islands. They belong to this continent, and for any other
nation to take them or claim them was, and is, a piece of
impertinence and impudence.

So I would like to see the Sandwich Islands annexed to
the United States. They are a good way from San Fran
cisco and our Western shore, but they are nearer to us than
they are to any other nation. I think they would be of
great importance. They would tend to increase the Asiatic
trade, and they certainly would be important in case of war.
We should have fortifications on those islands that no naval
power could take.

INTERVIEWS. 539

Some objection has been made on the ground that under
our system the people of those islands would have to be
represented in Congress. I say yes, represented by a
delegate until the islands become a real part of the country,
and by that time, there would be several hundred thousand
Americans living there, capable of sending over respectable
members of Congress.

Now, I think that Mr. Cleveland has made a very great
mistake. First, I think he was mistaken as to the facts in
the Sandwich Islands ; secondly, as to the Constitution of
the United States, and thirdly, as to the powers of the
President of the United States.

Question. In your experience as a lawyer what was the
most unique case in which you were ever engaged ?

Answer. The Star Route triaL Every paper in the
country, but one, was against the defence, and that one was
a little sheet owned by one of the defendants. I received a
note from a man living in a little town in Ohio criticising
me for defending the accused. In reply I wrote that I
supposed he was a sensible man and that he, of course,
knew what he was talking about when he said the accused
were guilty ; that the Government needed just such men
as he, and that he should come to the trial at once and
testify. The man wrote back: " Dear Colonel: I am a —
fool."

Question. Will the church and the stage ever work
together for the betterment of the world, and what is the
province of each?

Answer. The church and stage will never work together.
The pulpit pretends that fiction is fact. The stage pretends
that fiction is fact. The pulpit pretence is dishonest — that
of the stage is sincere. The actor is true to art, and
honestly pretends to be what he is not. The actor is
natural, if he is great, and in this naturalness is his truth
and his sincerity. The pulpit is unnatural, and for that

54O INTERVIEWS.

reason untrue. The pulpit is for another world, the stage
for this. The stage is good because it is natural, because it
portrays real and actual life; because "it holds the mirror
up to nature." The pulpit is weak because it too often
belittles and bemeans this life; because it slanders and
calumniates the natural and is the enemy of joy. — The inter-

Ocean, Chicago, February 2, 1894.

ORATORS AND ORATORY.*

Question. I should be glad if you would tell me what you
think the differences are between English and American
oratory ?

Answer. There is no difference between the real English
and the real American orator. Oratory is the same the
world over. The man who thinks on his feet, who has the
pose of passion, the face that thought illumines, a voice in
harmony with the ideals expressed, who has logic like a
column and poetry like a vine, who transfigures the com
mon, dresses the ideals of the people in purple and fine
linen, who has the art of finding the best and noblest in
his hearers, and who in a thousand ways creates the climate
in which the best grows and flourishes and bursts into
blossom — that man is an orator, no matter of what time or
what country.

Question. If you were to compare individual English and
American orators — recent or living orators in particular —
what would you say ?

• It was at his own law-office in New York City that I had my talk with that very no
table American, Col. Robert G. Ingersoll. " Bob "Ingersoll, Americans call him affec
tionately ; in a company of friends it is " The Colonel."

A more interesting personality it would be hard to find, and those who know even a
little of him will tell you that a bigger-hearted man probably does not live. Suppose a
well-knit frame, grown stouter than it once was, and a fine, strong face, with a vivid
gleam in tne eyes, a deep, uncommonly musical voice, clear cut, decisive, and a manner
entirely delightful, yet tinged with a certain reserve. Introduce a smoking cigar, the
smoke rising in little curls and billows, then imagine a rugged sort of picturesqueness in
dress, and you get, not by any means the man, but, still, some notion or " Bob" Ingersoll.

Colonel Ingersoll stands at the front of American orators. The natural thing, there
fore, was that I should ask him— a master in the art — about oratory. What he said I shall
give in hia own words precisely as I took them down from his lips, for in the case of such
a good commander of the old English tongue that is of some importance. But the wonder
f (il limpidnees, the charming peuucidness of Ingersoll can only be adequately undemoW
when you also have the finishing touch of hi* facile voice.

INTERVIEWS. 541

Answer. I have never heard any of the great English
speakers, and consequently can pass no judgment as to
their merits, except such as depends on reading. I think,
however, the finest paragraph ever uttered in Great Britain
was by Currau in his defence of Rowan. I have never read
one of Mr. Gladstone's speeches, only fragments. I think
he lacks logic. Bright was a great speaker, but he lacked
imagination and the creative faculty. Disraeli spoke for
the clubs, and his speeches were artificial. We have had
several fine speakers in America. I think that Thomas
Corwin stands at the top of the natural orators. Sergeant
S. Prentiss, the lawyer, was a very great talker ; Henry
Ward Beecher was the greatest orator that the pulpit has
produced. Theodore Parker was a great orator. In this
country, however, probably Daniel Webster occupies the
highest place in general esteem.

Question. Which would you say are the better orators,
speaking generally, the American people or the English
people ?

Answer. I think Americans are, on the average, better
talkers than the English. I think England has produced
the greatest literature of the world; but I do not think
England has produced the greatest orators of the world.
I know of no English orator equal to Webster or Corwin
or Beecher.

Question. Would you mind telling me how it was you
came to be a public speaker, a lecturer, an orator?

Answer. We call this America of ours free, and yet I found
it was very far from free. Our writers and our speakers
declared that here in America church and state were
divorced. I found this to be untrue. I found that the
church was supported by the state in many ways, that
people who failed to believe certain portions of the creeds
were not allowed to testify in courts or to hold office. It
occurred to me that some one ought to do something

542 INTERVIEWS.

toward making this country intellectually free, and after a
while I thought that I might as well endeavor to do this
as wait for another. This is the way in which I came to
make speeches; it was an action in favor of liberty. I
have said things because I wanted to say them, and because
I thought they ought to be said.

Question. Perhaps you will tell me your methods as a
speaker, for I'm sure it would be interesting to know them ?

Answer. Sometimes, and frequently, I deliver a lecture
several times before it is written. I have it taken by a
shorthand writer, and afterward written out. At other
times I have dictated a lecture, and delivered it from man
uscript. The course pursued depends on how I happen to
feel at the time. Sometimes I read a lecture, and some
times I deliver lectures without any notes — this, again,
depending much on how I happen to feel. So far as
methods are concerned, everything should depend on feel
ing. Attitude, gesture, voice, emphasis, should all be in ac
cord with and spring from feeling, from the inside.

Question. Is there any possibility of your coming to
England, and, I need hardly add, of your coming to speak?

Answer. I have thought of going over to England, and I
may do so. There is an England in England for which I
have the highest possible admiration, the England of cul
ture, of art, and Of principle. — The Sketch, London, Eng,, March 21,1894.

CATHOLICISM AND PROTESTANTISM. THE POPE,
THE A. P. A., AGNOSTICISM AND THE CHURCH.

Question. Which do you regard as the better, Catholicism
or Protestantism ?

Answer. Protestantism is better than Catholicism because
there is less of it. Protestantism does not teach that a
monk is better than a husband and father, that a nun ia
holier than a mother. Protestants do not believe in the
confessional. Neither do they pretend that priests can for-

INTERVIEWS. 543

give sins. Protestantism has fewer ceremonies and less
opera bouffe, clothes, caps, tiaras, mitres, crooks and holy
toys. Catholics have an infallible man — an old Italian.
Protestants have an infallible book, written by Hebrews
before they were civilized. The infallible man is generally
wrong, and the infallible book is filled with mistakes and
contradictions. Catholics and Protestants are both enemies
of intellectual freedom — of real education, but both are
opposed to education enough to make free men and women.

Between the Catholics and Protestants there has been
about as much difference as there is between crocodiles and
alligators. Both have done the worst they could, both are
as bad as they can be, and the world is getting tired of both.
The world is not going to choose either — both are to be re
jected.

Question, Are you willing to give your opinion of the
Pope?

Answer. It may be that the Pope thinks he is infallible,
but I doubt it. He may think that he is the agent of God,
but I guess not. He may know more than other people, but
if he does he has kept it to himself. He does not seem sat
isfied with standing in the place and stead of God in spirit
ual matters, but desires temporal power. He wishes to be
Pope and King. He imagines that he has the right to con
trol the belief of all the world ; that he is the shepherd of
all " sheep " and that the fleeces belong to him. He thinks
that in his keeping is the conscience of mankind. So he im
agines that his blessing is a great benefit to the faithful and
that his prayers can change the course of natural events.
He is a strange mixture of the serious and comical. He
claims to represent God, and admits that he is almost a
prisoner. There is something pathetic in the condition of
this pontiff. When I think of him, I think of Lear on the
heath, old, broken, touched with insanity, and yet, in his
own opinion, " every inch a king."

544 INTERVIEWS.

The Pope is a fragment, a remnant, a shred, a patch of
ancient power and glory. He is a survival of the unfittest,
a souvenir of theocracy, a relic of the supernatural. Of
course he will have a few successors, and they will become
more and more comical, more and more helpless and im
potent as the world grows wise and free. I am not blam
ing the Pope. He was poisoned at the breast of his mother.
Superstition was mingled with her milk. He was poisoned
at school — taught to distrust his reason and to live by faith.
And so it may be that his mind was so twisted and tor
tured out of shape that he now really believes that he is the
infallible agent of an infinite God.

Question. Are you in favor of the A. P. A. ?

Answer. In this country I see no need of secret political
societies. I think it better to fight in the open field. I am
a believer in religious liberty, in allowing all sects to preach
their doctrines and to make as many converts as they can.
As long as we have free speech and a free press I think
there is no danger of the country being ruled by any church.
The Catholics are much better than their creed, and the
same can be said of nearly all members of orthodox churches.
A majority of American Catholics think a great deal more
of this country than they do of their church. When they
are in good health they are on our side. It is only when
they are very sick that they turn their eyes toward Rome.
If they were in the majority, of course, they would destroy
all other churches and imprison, torture and kill all Infidels.
But they will never be in the majority. They increase now
only because Catholics come from other countries. In a
few years that supply will cease, and then the Catholic
Church will grow weaker every day. The free secular
school is the enemy of priestcraft and superstition, and the
people of this country will never consent to the destruction
of that institution. I want no man persecuted on account
of his religion.

INTERVIEWS.

545

Question. If there is no beatitude, or heaven, how do you
account for the continual struggle in every natural heart
for its own betterment ?

Answer. Man has many wants, and all his efforts are the
children of wants. If he wanted nothing he would do
nothing. We civilize the savage by increasing his wants,
by cultivating his fancy, his appetites, his desires. He is
then willing to work to satisfy these new wants. Man
always tries to do things in the easiest way. His constant
effort is to accomplish more with less work. He invents a
machine; then he improves it, his idea being to make it
perfect. He wishes to produce the best. So in every de
partment of effort and knowledge he seeks the highest suc
cess, and he seeks it because it is for his own good here in
this world. So he finds that there is a relation between
happiness and conduct, and he tries to find out what he
must do to produce the greatest enjoyment. This is the
basis of morality, of law and ethics. We are so constitu
ted that we love proportion, color, harmony. This is
the artistic man. Morality is the harmony and proportion
of conduct — the music of life. Man continually seeks to
better his condition — not because he is immortal — but be
cause he is capable of grief and pain, because he seeks for
happiness. Man wishes to respect himself and to gain the
respect of others. The brain wants light, the heart wants
love. Growth is natural. The struggle to overcome
temptation, to be good and noble, brave and sincere, to
reach, if possible, the perfect, is no evidence of the immor
tality of the soul or of the existence of other worlds. Men
live to excel, to become distinguished, to enjoy, and so
they strive, each in his own way, to gain the ends de
sired.

Question. Do you believe that the race is growing moral
or immoral ?

Answer. The world is growing better. There is more

546 INTERVIEWS .

real liberty, more thought, more intelligence than ever be
fore. The world was never so charitable or generous as
now. We do not put honest debtors in prison, we no longer
believe in torture. Punishments are less severe. We place
a higher value on human life. We are far kinder to animals.
To this, however, there is one terrible exception. The
vivisectors, those who cut, torture and mutilate in the name
of science, disgrace our age. They excite the horror and
indignation of all good people. Leave out the actions of
those wretches, and animals are better treated than ever be
fore. So there is less beating of wives and whipping of
children. The whip is no longer found in the civilized
home. Intelligent parents now govern by kindness, love
and reason. The standard of honor is higher than ever.
Contracts are more sacred, and men do nearer as they agree.
Man has more confidence in his fellow-man, and in the
goodness of human nature. Yes, the world is getting
better, nobler and grander every day. We are moving
along the highway of progress on our way to the Eden of
the future.

Question. Are the doctrines of Agnosticism gaining ground,
and what, in your opinion, will be the future of the
church ?

Answer. The Agnostic is intellectually honest. He knows
the limitations of his mind. He is convinced that the
questions of origin and destiny cannot be answered by man.
He knows that he cannot answer these questions, and he is
candid enough to say so. The Agnostic has good mental
manners. He does not call belief or hope or wish, a
demonstration. He knows the difference between hope and
belief — between belief and knowledge — arid he keeps these
distinctions in his mind. He does not say that a certain
theory is true because he wishes it to be true. He tries to
go according to evidence, in harmony with facts, without
regard to his own desires? or the wish of the public. He has

INTERVIEWS. 547

the courage of his convictions and the modesty of his ig
norance. The theologian is his opposite. He is certain
and sure of the existence of things and beings and worlds
of which there is, and can be, no evidence. He relies on
assertion, and in all debate attacks the motive of his oppo*
nent instead of answering his arguments. All savages know
the origin and destiny of man. About other things they
know but little. The theologian is much the same. The
Agnostic has given up the hope of ascertaining the nature
of the " First Cause " — the hope of ascertaining whether or
not there was a " First Cause." He admits that he does not.
know whether or not there is an infinite Being. He admits
that these questions cannot be answered, and so he refuses
to answer. He refuses also to pretend. He knows that
the theologian does not know, and he has the courage to
say so.

He knows that the religious creeds rest on assumption,
supposition, assertion — on myth and legend, on ignorance
and superstition, and that there is no evidence of their
truth. The Agnostic bends his energies in the opposite
direction. He occupies himself with this world, with things
that can be ascertained and understood. He turns his at
tention to the sciences, to the solution of questions that
touch the well-being of man. He wishes to prevent and to
cure diseases ; to lengthen life ; to provide homes and
raiment and food for man ; to supply the wants of the
body.

He also cultivates the arts. He believes in painting and
sculpture, in music and the drama — the needs of the soul.
The Agnostic believes in developing the brain, in cultivat
ing the affections, the tastes, the conscience, the judgment,
to the end that man may be happy in this world. He seeks to
find the relation of things, the condition of happiness. He
wishes to enslav** '.lie forces of nature to the end that they
may perform the work of the world. Back of all progress

INTERVIEWS.

are the real thinkers ; the finders of facts, those who turn
their attention to the world in which we live. The theolo
gian has never been a help, always a hindrance. He has
always kept his back to the sunrise. With him all wisdom
was in the past. He appealed to the dead. He was and is the
enemy of reason, of investigation, of thought and progress.
The church has never given "sanctuary" to a persecuted
truth.

There can be no doubt that the ideas of the Agnostic are
gaining ground. The scientific spirit has taken possession
of the intellectual world. Theological methods are unpop
ular to-day, even in theological schools. The attention
of men everywhere is being directed to the affairs of this
world, this life. The gods are growing indistinct, and, like
the shapes of clouds, they are changing as they fade. The
idea of special providence has been substantially abandoned.
People are losing, and intelligent people have lost, confi
dence in prayer. To-day no intelligent person believes in
miracles — in a violation of the facts in nature. They may
believe that there used to be miracles a good while ago, but
not now. The "supernatural" is losing its power, its in
fluence, and the church is growing weaker every day.

The church is supported by the people, and in order to
gain the support of the people it must reflect their ideas,
their hopes and fears. As the people advance, the creeds
will be changed, either by changing the words or giving
new meanings to the old words. The church, in order to
live, must agree substanially with those who support it, and
consequently it will change to any extent that may be
necessary. If the church remains true to the old standards
then it will lose the support cf progressive people, and if the
people generally advance the church will die. But my
opinion is that it will slowly change, that the minister will
preach what the members want to hear, and that the creed
will be controlled bv the contribution box. One of these

INTERVIEWS. 549

days the preachers may become teachers, and when that
happens the church will be of use.

Question. What do you regard as the greatest of all themes
in poetry and song ?

Answer. Love and Death. The same is true of the great
est music. In " Tristan and Isolde" is the greatest music of
love and death. In Shakespeare the greatest themes are love
and death. In all real poetry, in all real music, the domi
nant, the triumphant tone, is love, and the minor, the sad
refrain, the shadow, the background, the mystery, is death.

Question. What would be your advice to an intelligent
young man just starting out in life?

Answer. I would say to him : "Be true to your ideal.
Cultivate your heart and brain. Follow the light of your
reason. Get all the happiness out of life that you possibly
can. Do not care for power, but strive to be useful. First
of all, support yourself so that you may not be a burden to
others. If you are successful, if you gain a surplus, use it
for the good of others. Own yourself and live and die a
free man. Make your home a heaven, love your wife and
govern your children by kindness. Be good natured, cheer
ful, forgiving and generous. Find out the conditions of
happiness, and then be wise enough to live in accordance
with them. Cultivate intellectual hospitality, express your
honest thoughts, love your friends and be just to your

enemies." — New York Herald, September 16, 1894.

WOMAN AND HER DOMAIN.

Question. What is your opinion of the effect of the mul
tiplicity of women's clubs as regards the intellectual, moral
and domestic status of their members ?

Answer. I think that women should have clubs and
societies, that they should get together and exchange ideas.
Women, as a rule, are provincial and conservative. They
keep alive all the sentimental mistakes and superstitions.

550 INTERVIEWS.

Now, if they can only get away from these, and get abreast
with the tide of the times, and think as well as feel, it will
be better for them and their children. You know St. Paul
tells women that if they want to know anything they must
ask their husbands. For many centuries they have followed
i-his orthodox advice, and of course they have not learned a
great deal, because their husbands could not answer their
questions. Husbands, as a rule, do not know a great deal,
and it will not do for every wife to depend on the ignorance
of her worst half. The women of to-day are the great
readers, and no book is a great success unless it pleases the
women.

As a result of this, all the literature of the world has
changed, so that now in all departments the thoughts of
women are taken into consideration, and women have
thoughts, because they are the intellectual equals of men.

There are no statesmen in this country the equals of
Harriet Martineau; probably no novelists the equals of
George Eliot or George Sand, and I think -Ouida the
greatest living novelist. I think her "Ariadne " is one of the
greatest novels in the English language. There are few
novels better than " Consuelo," few poems better than
"'Mother and Poet."

So in all departments women are advancing; some of
them have taken the highest honors at medical colleges ;
others are prominent in the sciences, some are great artists,
and there are several very fine sculptors, &c., &c.

So you can readily see what my opinion is on that point.

I am in favor of giving woman all the domain she con
quers, and as the world becomes civilized the domain that
she can conquer will steadily increase.

Question. But, Colonel, is there no danger of greatly inter
fering with a woman's duties as wife and mother?

Answer. I do not think that it is dangerous to think, or
that thought interferes with love or the duties of wife or

INTERVIEWS. 551

mother. I think the contrary is the truth ; the greater the
brain the greater the power to love, the greater the power
to discharge all duties and obligations, so I have no fear for
the future. About women voting I don't care ; whatever
they want to do they have my consent. — The Democrat, Grand

Rapids, Michigan, 1894.

PROFESSOR SWING.

Question. Since you were last in this city, Colonel, a dis
tinguished man has passed away in the person of Professor
Swing. The public will be interested to have your opinion
of him.

Answer. I think Professor Swing did a great amount of
good. He helped to civilize the church and to humanize
the people. His influence was in the right direction —
toward the light. In his youth he was acquainted with
toil, poverty, and hardship ; his road was filled with thorns,
and yet he lived and scattered flowers in the paths of many
people. At first his soul was in the dungeon of a savage
creed, where the windows were very small and closely
grated, and through which struggled only a few rays of
light. He longed for more light and for more liberty, and
at last his fellow-prisoners drove him forth, and from that
time until his death he did what he could to give light and
liberty to the souls of men. He was a lover of nature,
poetic in his temperament, charitable and merciful. As
an orator he may have lacked presence, pose and voice, but
he did not lack force of statement or beauty of expression.
He was a man of wide learning, of great admiration of the
heroic and tender. He did what he could to raise the
standard of character, to make his fellow-men just and
noble. He lost the provincialism of his youth and became
in a very noble sense a citizen of the world. He under
stood that all the good is not in our race or in our religion
— that in every land there are good and noble men, self-

552 INTERVIEWS.

denying and lovely women, and that in most respects other
religions are as good as ours, and in many respects better.
This gave him breadth of intellectual horizon and enlarged
his sympathy for the failures of the world. I regard his
death as a great loss, and his life as a lesson and inspira
tion. — Inter-Ocean, Chicago, October 13, 1894.

SENATOR SHERMAN AND HIS BOOK.*

Question, What do you think of Senator Sherman's book
— especially the part about Garfield ?

Answer. Of course, I have only read a few extracts from
Mr. Sherman's reminiscences, but I am perfectly satisfied
that the Senator is mistaken about Garfield's course. The
truth is that Garfield captured the convention by his
course from day to day, and especially by the speech he
made for Sherman. After that speech, and it was a good
one, the best that Garfield ever made, the convention said,
" Speak for yourself, John."

It was perfectly apparent that if the Elaine and Sherman
forces should try to unite, Grant would be nominated. It
had to be Grant or a new man, and that man was Garfield.
It all came about without Garfield's help, except in the
way I have said. Garfield even went so far as to declare
that under no circumstances could he accept, because he
was for Sherman, and honestly for him. He told me that
he would not allow his iralne to go before the convention.
Just before he was nominated I wrote him a note in which

* No one is better qualified than Robert G. Ingersoll to talk about Senator Sherman's
book and the questions it raises in political history. Mr. Ingereoll was for years a resi
dent of Washington and a next-door neighbor to Mr. Sherman ; he was for an even longer
period the intimate personal friend of James G. Elaine ; he knew Garfield from almost
daily contact, and of the Republican National Conventions concerning which Senator
Sherman has raised points of controversy Mr. Ingersoll can say, as the North Carolinian
said of the Confederacy, " Part of whom I am which."

He placed Elaine's name before the convention at Cincinnati in 1876. He made the
first of the three great nominating speeches in convention history, Conkling and Garfield
making the others in 1880.

The figure of the Plumed Knight which Mr. Ingereoll created to characterize Mr. Elaine
is part of the latter's memory. At Chicago, four years later, when Uarfield, dazed by the
irresistible doubt of the convention, was "on the point of refusing that in the acceptance
of which he had no voluntary part, Ingeraoll was the adviser who showed him that duty
to Sherman required no such action.

INTERVIEWS. 553

I said he was about to be nominated, and that he must not
decline. I am perfectly satisfied that he acted with perfect
honor, and that he did his best for Sherman.

Question. Mr. Sherman expresses the opinion that if he
had had the " moral strength " of the Ohio delegation in
his support he would have been nominated?

Answer. We all know that while Senator Sherman had
many friends, and that while many thought he would make
an excellent President, still there was but little enthusiasm
among his followers. Sherman had the respect of the
party, but hardly the love.

Question. In his book the Senator expresses the opinion
that he was quite close to the nomination in 1888, when
Mr. Quay was for him. Do you think that is so, Mr.
Ingersoll ?

Answer. I think Mr. Sherman had a much better chance
in 1888 than in 1880, but as a matter of fact, he never came
within hailing distance of success at any time. He is not
of the nature to sway great bodies of men. He lacks the
power to impress himself upon others to such an extent
as to make friends of enemies and devotees of friends. Mr.
Sherman has had a remarkable career, and I think that he
ought to be satisfied with what he has achieved.

Question. Mr. Ingersoll, what do you think defeated
Elaine for the nomination in 1876?

Answer. On the first day of the convention at Cincin
nati it was known that Elaine was the leading candidate.
All of the enthusiasm was for him. It was soon known
that Conkling, Bristow or Morton could not be nominated,
and that in all probability Elaine would succeed. The fact
that Elaine had been attacked by vertigo, or had suffered
from a stroke of apoplexy, gave an argument to those who
opposed him, and this was used with great effect. After
Elaine was put in nomination, and before any vote was
taken, the convention adjourned, and during the night a

554 INTERVIEWS.

great deal of work was done. The Michigan delegation
was turned inside out and the Elaine forces raided in
several States. Hayes, the dark horse, suddenly developed
speed, and the scattered forces rallied to his support. I
have always thought that if a ballot could have been taken
on the day Elaine was put in nomination he would have
succeeded, and yet he might have been defeated for the
nomination anyway.

Elaine had the warmest friends and the bitterest enemies
of any man in the party. People either loved or hated him.
He had no milk-and-water friends and no milk-and-water
enemies.

Question. If Elaine had been nominated at Cincinnati in
1876 would he have made a stronger candidate than Hayes
did?

Answer. If he had been nominated then, I believe that
he would have been triumphantly elected. Mr. Elaine's
worst enemies would not have supported Tilden, and
thousands of moderate Democrats would have given their
votes to Elaine.

Question. Mr. Ingersoll, do you think that Mr. Elaine
wanted the nomination in 1884, when he got it?

Answer. In 1883, Mr. Elaine told me that he did not
want the nomination. I said to him : " Is that honest ? "
He replied that he did not want it, that he was tired of the
whole business. I said : "If you do not want it ; if you
have really reached that conclusion, then I think you will
get it." He laughed, and again said : " I do not want it." I
believe that he spoke exactly as he then felt.

Question. What do you think defeated Mr. Elaine at the
polls in 1884?

Answer. Elaine was a splendid manager for another man,
a great natural organizer, and when acting for others made
no mistake ; but he did not manage his own campaign with
ability. He made a succession of mistakes. His suit

INTERVIEWS. 555

against the Indianapolis editor ; his letter about the owner
ship of certain stocks; his reply to Burchard and the
preachers, in which he said that history showed the church
could get along without the state, but the state could not
get along without the church, and this in reply to the
"Rum, Romanism and Rebellion" nonsense; and last, but
not least, his speech to the millionaires in New York — all of
these things weakened him. As a matter of fact many
Catholics were going to support Elaine, but when they saw
him fooling with the Protestant clergy, and accepting the
speech of Burchard, they instantly turned against him. If
he had never met Burchard, I think he would have been
elected.- His career was something like that of Mr. Clay;
he was the most popular man of his party and yet

Question. How do you account for Mr. Elaine's action
in allowing his name to go before the convention at
Minneapolis in 1892?

Answer. In 1892, Mr. Elaine was a sick man, almost
worn out ; he was not his former self, and he was influenced
by others. He seemed to have lost his intuition ; he was
misled, yet in spite of all defeats, no name will create
among Republicans greater enthusiasm than that of James
G. Elaine. Millions are still his devoted, unselfish and
enthusiastic friends and defenders. — The Globe-Democrat, st. Louis,

Octobers?, 1895.

REPLY TO THE CHRISTIAN ENDEAVORERS.

Question. How were you affected by the announcement
that the united prayers of the Salvationists and Christian
Endeavorers were to be offered for your conversion ?

Answer. The announcement did not affect me to any
great extent. I take it for granted that the people praying
for me are sincere and that they have a real interest in my
welfare. Of course, I thank them one and all. At the
same time I can hardly account for what they did. Cer
tainly they would not ask God to convert me unless they

556 INTERVIEWS.

thought the prayer could be answered. And if their God
can convert me of course he can convert everybody. Then
the question arises why does he not do it. Why does he
let millions go to hell when he can convert them all. Why
did he not convert them all before the flood and take them
all to heaven instead of drowning them and sending them
all to hell. Of course these questions can be answered by
saying that God's ways are not our ways. I am greatly
obliged to these people. Still, I feel about the same, so
that it would be impossible to get up a striking picture of
"before and after." It was good-natured on their part to
pray for me, and that act alone leads me to believe that
there is still hope for them. The trouble with the Chris
tian Endeavorers is that they don't give my arguments con
sideration. If they did they would agree with me. It
seemed curious that they would advise divine wisdom what
to do, or that they would ask infinite mercy to treat me
with kindness. If there be a God, of course he knows
what ought to be done, and will do it without any hints
from ignorant human beings. Still, the Endeavorers and
the Salvation people may know more about God than I do.
For all I know, this God may need a little urging. He
may be powerful but a little slow ; intelligent but some
times a little drowsy, and it may do good now and then to
call his attention to the facts. The prayers did not, so far
as I know, do me the least injury or the least good. I was
glad to see that the Christians are getting civilized. A
few years ago they would have burned me. Now they
pray for me.

Suppose God should answer the prayers and convert me,
how would he bring the conversion about? In the first
place, he would have to change my brain and give me more
credulity — that is, he would be obliged to lessen my rea
soning power. Then I would believe not only without
evidence, but in spite of evidence. All the miracles would

INTERVIEWS. 557

appear perfectly natural. It would then seem as easy to
raise the dead as to waken the sleeping. In addition to
this, God would so change my mind that I would hold all
reason in contempt and put entire confidence in faith. I
would then regard science as the enemy of human happi
ness, and ignorance as the soil in which virtues grow.
Then I would throw away Darwin and Humboldt, and rely
on the sermons of orthodox preachers. In other words, I
would become a little child and amuse myself with a relig
ious rattle and a Gabriel horn. Then I would rely on a
man who has been dead for nearly two thousand years to
secure me a seat in Paradise.

After conversion, it is not pretended that I will be any
better so far as my actions are concerned ; no more charita
ble, no more honest, no more generous. The great differ
ence will be that I will believe more and think less.

After all, the converted people do not seem to be better
than the sinners. I never heard of a poor wretch clad in
rags, limping into a town and asking for the house of a
Christian.

I think that I had better remain as I am. I had better
follow the light of my reason, be true to myself, express
my honest thoughts, and do the little I can for the destruc
tion of superstition, the little I can for the development of
the brain, for the increase of intellectual hospitality and
the happiness of my fellow-beings. One world at a time.

—New York Journal, December 15, 1895.

SPIRITUALISM.

There are several good things about the Spiritualists.
First, they are not bigoted ; second, they do not believe in
salvation by faith; third, they don't expect to be happy
in another world because Christ was good in this ; fourth,
the3r do not preach the consolation of hell ; fifth, they do
not believe in God as an infinite monster ; sixth, the

558 INTERVIEWS.

Spiritualists believe in intellectual hospitality. In these
respects they differ from our Christian brethren, and in
these respects they are far superior to the saints.

I think that the Spiritualists have done good. They
believe in enjoying themselves — in having a little pleas
ure in this world. They are social, cheerful and good-
natured. They are not the slaves of a book. Their hands
and feet are not tied with passages of Scripture. They
are not troubling themselves about getting forgiveness
and settling their heavenly debts for a cent on the dollar.
Their belief does not make them mean or miserable.

They do not persecute their neighbors. They ask no
one to have faith or to believe without evidence. They
ask all to investigate, and then to make up their minds
from the evidence. Hundreds of thousands of well-edu
cated, intelligent people are satisfied with the evidence and
firmly believe in the existence of spirits. For all I know,
they may be right — but

Question. The Spiritualists have indirectly claimed, that
you were in many respects almost one of them. Have
you given them reason to believe so ?

Answer. I am not a Spiritualist, and have never pre
tended to be. The Spiritualists believe in free thought, in
freedom of speech, and they are willing to hear the other
side — willing to hear me. The best thing about the Spirit
ualists is that they believe in intellectual hospitality.

Question. Is Spiritualism a religion or a truth ?

Answer. I think that Spiritualism may properly be
called a religion. It deals with two worlds — teaches the
. duty of man to his fellows — the relation that this life bears
to the next. It claims to be founded on facts. It insists
that the " dead " converse with the living, and that infor
mation is received from those who once lived in this world.
Of the truth of these claims I have no sufficient evidence.

Question. Are all mediums impostors ?

INTERVIEWS.

559

Answer. I will not say that all mediums are impostors,
because I do not know. I do not believe that these medi
ums get any information or help from " spirits." I know
that for thousands of years people have believed in medi
ums — in Spiritualism. A spirit in the form of a man ap
peared to Samson's mother, and afterward to his father.

Spirits, or angels, called on Abraham. The witch of
Endor raised the ghost of Samuel. An angel appeared
with three men in the furnace. The handwriting on the
wall was done by a spirit. A spirit appeared to Joseph in
a dream, to the wise men and to Joseph again.

So a spirit, an angel or a god spoke to Saul, and the
same happened to Mary Magdalene.

The religious literature of the world is filled with such
things. Take Spiritualism from Christianity and the whole
edifice crumbles. All religions, so far as I know, are based
on Spiritualism — on communications received from angels,
from spirits.

I do not say that all the mediums, ancient and modern,
were, and are, impostors — but I do think that all the honest
ones were, and are, mistaken. I do not believe that man
has ever received any communication from angels, spirits
or gods. No whisper, as I believe, has ever come from any
other world. The lips of the dead are always closed.
From the grave there has come no voice. For thousands
of years people have been questioning the dead. They
have tried to catch the whisper of a vanished voice. Many
say that they have succeeded. I do not know.

Question. What is the explanation of the startling knowl
edge displayed by some so-called " mediums " of the his
tory and personal affairs of people who consult them ? Is
there any such thing as mind-reading or thought-trans
ference ?

Answer. In a very general wa>v I suppose that one per
son may read the thought of another— not definitely, but

560 INTERVIEWS.

by the expression of the face, by the attitude of the body,
some idea may be obtained as to what a person thinks,
what he intends. So thought may be transferred by look
or language, but not simply by will. Everything that is,
is natural. Our ignorance is the soil in which mystery
grows. I do not believe that thoughts are things that can
be seen or touched. Each mind lives in a world of its
own, a world that no other mind can enter. Minds, like
ships at sea, give signs and signals to each other, but they
do not exchange captains.

Question, Is there any such thing as telepathy ? What
is the explanation of the stories of mental impression re
ceived at long distances ?

Answer. There are curious coincidences. People some
times happen to think of something that is taking place at
a great distance. The stories about these happenings are
not very well authenticated, and seem never to have been
of the least use to anybody.

Question. Can these phenomena be considered aside from
any connection with, or form of, superstition?

Answer. I think that mistake, emotion, nervousness,
hysteria, dreams, love of the wonderful, dishonesty,
ignorance, grief and the longing for immortality — the de
sire to meet the loved and lost, the horror of endless death
— account for these phenomena. People often mistake
their dreams for realities — often think that their thoughts
have " happened." They live in a mental mist, a mirage.
The boundary between the actual and the imagined be
comes faint, wavering and obscure. They mistake clouds
for mountains. The real and the unreal mix and mingle
until the impossible becomes common, and the natural
absurd.

Question. Do you believe that any sane man ever had a
vision ?

Answer. Of course, the sane and insane have visions,

INTERVIEWS. 561

dreams. I do not believe that any man, sane or insane,
was ever visited by an angel or spirit, or ever received any
information from the dead.

Question. Setting aside from consideration the so-called
physical manifestation of the mediums, has Spiritualism
offered any proof of the immortality of the soul ?

Answer. Of course Spiritualism offers what it calls proof
of immortality. That is its principal business. Thousands
and thousands of good, honest, intelligent people think the
proof sufficient. They receive what they believe to be
messages from the departed, and now and then the spirits
assume their old forms — including garments — and pass
through walls and doors as light passes through glass. Do
these things really happen ? If the spirits of the dead do
return, then the fact of another life is established. It all
depends on the evidence. Our senses are easily deceived,
and some people have more confidence in their reason than
in their senses.

Question. Do you not believe that such a man as Robert
Dale Owen was sincere? What was the real state of mind
of the author of " Footfalls on the Boundaries of Another
World"?

Answer. Without the slightest doubt, Robert Dale Owen
was sincere. He was one of the best of men. His father
labored all his life for the good of others. Robert Owen,
the father, had a debate, in Cincinnati, with the Rev. Alex
ander Campbell, the founder of the Campbellite Church.
Campbell was no match for Owen, and yet the audience
was almost unanimously against Owen.

Robert Dale Owen was an intelligent, thoughtful, honest
man. He was deceived by several mediums, but remained
a believer. He wanted Spiritualism to be true. He
hungered and thirsted for another life. He explained
everything that was mysterious or curious by assuming
the interference of spirits. He was a good man, but a

562 INTERVIEWS.

poor investigator. He thought that people were all
honest.

Question. What do you understand the Spiritualist means
when he claims that the soul goes to the "Summer land,"
and there continues to work and e volute to higher planes ?

Answer. No one pretends to know where "heaven" is.
The celestial realm is the blessed somewhere in the un
known nowhere. So far as I know, the " Summer land "
has no metes and bounds, and no one pretends to know
exactly or inexactly where it is. After all, the "Summer
land " is a hope — a wish. Spiritualists believe that a soul
leaving this world passes into another, or into another
state, and continues to grow in intelligence and virtue,
if it so desires.

Spiritualists claim to prove that there is another life.
Christians believe this, but their witnesses have been dead
for many centuries. They take the " hearsay " of legend
and ancient gossip ; but Spiritualists claim to have living
witnesses; witnesses that can talk, make music; that can
take to themselves bodies and shake hands with the people
they knew before they passed to the "other shore."

Question. Has Spiritualism, through its mediums, ever
told the world anything useful, or added to the store of
the world's knowledge, or relieved its burdens ?

Answer. I do not know that any medium has added to
the useful knowledge of the world, unless mediums have
given evidence of another life. Mediums have told us
nothing about astronomy, geology or history, have made
no discoveries, no inventions, and have enriched no art.
The same may be said of every religion.

All the orthodox churches believe in Spiritualism.
Every now and then the Virgin appears to some peasant,
and in the old days the darkness was filled with evil
spirits. Christ was a Spiritualist, and his principal busi
ness was the casting out of devils. All of his disciples, all

INTERVIEWS. 563

of the church fathers, all of the saints were believers in
Spiritualism of the lowest and most ignorant type. During
the Middle Ages people changed themselves, with the aid
of spirits, into animals. They became wolves, dogs, cats
and donkeys. In those days all the witches and wizards
were mediums. So animals were sometimes taken posses
sion of by spirits, the same as Balaam's donkey and
Christ's swine. Nothing was too absurd for the Christians.

Question. Has not Spiritualism added to the world's store
of hope? And in what way has not Spiritualism done
good?

Answer. The mother holding in her arms her dead child,
believing that the babe has simply passed to another life,
does not weep as bitterly as though she thought that death
was the eternal end. A belief in Spiritualism must be a
consolation. You see, the Spiritualists do not believe in
eternal pain, and consequently a belief in immortality does
not fill their hearts with fear.

Christianity makes eternal life an infinite horror, and
casts the glare of hell on almost every grave.

The Spiritualists appear to be happy in their belief. I
have never known a happy orthodox Christian.

It is natural to shun death, natural to desire eternal life.
With all my heart I hope for everlasting life and joy — a
life without failures, without crimes and tears.

If immortality could be established, the river of life would
overflow with happiness. The faces of prisoners, of
slaves, of the deserted, of the diseased and starving would
be radiant with smiles, and the dull eyes of despair would
glow with light.

If it could be established.

Let US hope. — The Journal^ New York, July 28, 189C.

A LITTLE OF EVERYTHING.

Question. What is your opinion of the position taken by
the United States in the Venezuelan dispute ? How should
the dispute be settled ?

Answer. I do not think that we have any interest in the
dispute between Venezuela and England. It was and is
none of our business. The Monroe doctrine was not and
is not in any way involved. Mr. Cleveland made a mis
take and so did Congress.

Question. What should be the attitude of the church to
ward the stage ?

Answer. It should be, what it always has been, against
it. If the orthodox churches are right, then the stage is
wrong. The stage makes people forget hell ; and this puts
their souls in peril. There will be forever a conflict be
tween Shakespeare and the Bible.

Question. What do you think of the new woman ?

Answer. I like her.

Question. Where rests the responsibility for the Armenian
atrocities ?

Answer. Religion is the cause of the hatred and blood
shed.

Question. What do you think of international marriages,
as between titled foreigners and American heiresses ?

Answer. My opinion is the same as is entertained by the
American girl after the marriages. It is a great mistake.

Question. What do you think of England's Poet Laureate,
Alfred Austin ?

Answer. I have only read a few of his lines and they
were not poetic. The office of Poet Laureate should be

(564)

INTERVIEWS. 565

abolished. Men cannot write poems to order as they could
deliver cabbages or beer. By poems I do not mean jingles
of words. I mean great thoughts clothed in splendor.

Question. What is your estimate of Susan B. Anthony ?

Answer. Miss Anthony is one of the most remarkable
women in the world. She has the enthusiasm of youth and
spring, the courage and sincerity of a martyr. She is as
reliable as the attraction of gravitation. She is absolutely
true to her convictions, intellectually honest, logical, candid
and infinitely persistent. No human being has done more
for woman than Miss Anthony. She has won the respect
and admiration of the best people on the earth. And so I
say : Good luck and long life to Susan B. Anthony.

Question. Which did more for his country, George
Washington or Abraham Lincoln ?

Answer. In my judgment, Lincoln was the greatest man
ever President. I put him above Washington and Jeffer
son. He had the genius of goodness ; and he was one of
the wisest and shrewdest of men. Lincoln towers above
them all.

Question. What gave rise to the report that you had been
converted — did you go to church somewhere?

Answer. I visited the "People's Church" in Kalamazoo,
Michigan. This church has no creed. The object is to
make people happy in this world. Miss Bartlett is the
pastor. She is a remarkable woman and is devoting her
life to a good work. I liked her church and said so. This
is all.

Question. Are there not some human natures so morally
weak or diseased that they cannot keep from sin withou'
the aid of some sort of religion ?

Answer. I do not believe that orthodox religion helps
anybody to be just, generous or honest. Superstition is
not the soil in which goodness grows. Falsehood is poor
medicine.

566 INTERVIEWS.

Question. Would you consent to live in any but a Chris
tian community ? If you would, please name one.

Answer. I would not live in a community where all were
orthodox Christians. Such a community would be a
penitentiary. I would rather dwell in Central Africa. If
I could have my choice I would rather live among people
who were free, who sought for truth and lived according to
reason. Sometime there will be such a community.

Question. Is the noun " United States " singular or plural,
as you use English ?

Answer. I use it in the singular.

Question. Have you read Nordau's " Degeneracy " ? If
so, what do you think of it ?

Answer. I think it substantially insane.
Question. What do you think of Bishop Doane's advocacy
of free rum as a solution of the liquor problem ?

Answer. I am a believer in liberty. All the temperance
legislation, all the temperance societies, all the agitation,
all these things have done no good.

Question. Do you agree with Mr. Carnegie that a college
education is of little or no practical value to a man ?

Answer. A man must have education. It makes no dif
ference where or how he gets it. To study the dead
languages is time wasted so far as success in business is
concerned. Most of the colleges in this country are poor
because controlled by theologians.

Question. What suggestion would you make for the im
provement of the newspapers of this country ?

Answer. Every article in a newspaper should be signed
by the writer. And all writers should do their best to tell
the exact facts.

Question. What do you think of Niagara Falls ?
Answer. It is a dangerous place. Those great rushing
waters — there is nothing attractive to me in them. There
is so much noise; so much tumult. It is simply a mighty

INTERVIEWS. 567

force of nature — one of those tremendous powers that is to be
feared for its danger. What I like in nature is a cultivated
field, where men can work in the free open air, where there
is quiet and repose — no turmoil, no strife, no tumult, no
fearful roar or struggle for mastery. I do not like the
crowded, stuffy workshop, where life is slavery and drudgery.
Give me the calm, cultivated land of waving grain, of
flowers, of happiness.

Question. What is worse than death ?

Answer. Oh, a great many things. To be dishonored.
To be worthless. To feel that you are a failure. To be in
sane. To be constantly afraid of the future. To lose the

Ones yOU love. The Herald, Rochester, New York, February 25, 1896.

IS LIFE WORTH LIVING— CHRISTIAN SCIENCE AND
POLITICS.

Question. With all your experiences, the trials, the re
sponsibilities, the disappointments, the heartburnings,
Colonel, is life worth living ?

Answer. Well, I can only answer for myself. I like to
be alive, to breathe the air, to look at the landscape, the
clouds and stars, to repeat old poems, to look at pictures
and statues, to hear music, the voices of the ones I love. I
enjoy eating and smoking. I like good cold water. I like
to talk with my wife, my girls, my grandchildren. I like
to sleep and to dream. Yes, you can say that life, to me, is
worth living.

Question. Colonel, did you ever kill any game ?

Answer. When I was a boy I killed two ducks, and it
hurt me as much as anything I ever did. No, I would not
kill any living creature. I am sometimes tempted to kill a
mosquito on my hand, but I stop and think what a wonder
ful conScrtiCticn it has, and shoo it away.

Question. What do you think of political parties. ColoneJ ?
where the sovereignty is diviu_.

568 INTERVIEWS.

among the people, that is to say, among the men, in order
to accomplish anything, many must unite, and I believe in
joining the party that is going the nearest your way. I do
not believe in being the slave or serf or servant of a party.
Go with it if it is going your road, and when the road forks,
take the one that leads to the place you wish to visit, no
matter whether the party goes that way or not. I do not
believe in belonging to a party or being the property of any
organization. I do not believe in giving a mortgage on
yourself or a deed of trust for any purpose whatever. It is
better to be free and vote wrong than to be a slave and vote
right. I believe in taking the chances. At the same time,
as long as a party is going my way, I believe in placing
that party above particular persons, and if that party nom
inates a man that I despise, I will vote for him if he is going
my way. I would rather have a bad man belonging to my
party in place, than a good man belonging to the other,
provided my man believes in my principles, and to that
extent I believe in party loyalty.

Neither do I join in the general hue and cry against
bosses. There has always got to be a leader, even in a
flock of wild geese. If anything is to be accomplished, no
matter what, somebody takes the lead and the others allow
him to go on. In that way political bosses are made, and
when you hear a man howling against bosses at the top of
his lungs, distending his cheeks to the bursting point, you
may know that he has ambition to become a boss.

I do not belong to the Republican party, but I have been
going with it, and when it goes wrong I shall quit, unless
the other is worse. There is no office, no place, that I
want, and as it does not cost anything to be right, I think
it better to be that way.

Question. What is your idea of Christian Science?

Answer. I think it is superstition, pure and unadulter
ated. I think that soda will cure a sour stomach better

INTERVIEWS. 569

than thinking. In my judgment, quinine is a better tonic
than meditation. Of course cheerfulness is good and de
pression bad, but if you can absolutely control the body
and all its functions by thought, what is the use of buying
coal ? Let the mercury go down and keep yourself hot by
thinking. What is the use of wasting money for food ?
Fill your stomach with think. According to these Chris
tian Science people all that really exists is an illusion,
and the only realities are the things that do not exist.
They are like the old fellow in India who said that all
things were illusions. One day he was speaking to a
crowd on his favorite hobby. Just as he said " all is illu
sion " a fellow on an elephant rode toward him. The
elephant raised his trunk as though to strike, thereupon
the speaker ran away. Then the crowd laughed. In a
few moments the speaker returned. The people shouted :
"If all is illusion, what made you run away?" The
speaker replied : " My poor friends, I said all is illusion.
I say so still. There was no elephant. I did not run
away. You did not laugh, and I am not explaining now.
All is illusion."
That man must have been a Christian Scientist. — The inter-

Ocean, Chicago, November, 1897.

VIVISECTION.

Question. Why are you so utterly opposed to vivisection ?

Answer. Because, as it is generally practiced, it is an
unspeakable cruelty. Because it hardens the hearts and
demoralizes those who inflict useless and terrible pains on
the bound and helpless. If these vivisectionists would give
chloroform or ether to the animals they dissect; if they
would render them insensible to pain, and if, by cutting up
these animals, they could learn anything worth knowing,
no one would seriously object.

The trouble is that these doctors, these students, these

570 INTERVIEWS.

professors, these amateurs, do not give anaesthetics. They
insist that to render the animal insensible does away with
the value of the experiment. They care nothing for the
pain they inflict. They are so eager to find some fact that
will be of benefit to the human race, that they are utterly
careless of the agony endured.

Now, what I say is that no decent man, no gentleman, no
civilized person, would vivisect an animal without first
having rendered that animal insensible to pain. The
doctor, the scientist, who puts his knives, forceps, chisels
and saws into the flesh, bones and nerves of an animal
without having used an anaesthetic, is a savage, a pitiless,
heartless monster. When he says he does this for the good
of man, because he wishes to do good, he says what is not
true. No such man wants to do good ; he commits the
crime for his own benefit and because he wishes to gratify
an insane curiosity or to gain a reputation among like
savages.

These scientists now insist that they have done some
good. They do not tell exactly what they have done.
The claim is general in its character — not specific. If they
have done good, could they not have done just as much if
they had used anaesthetics ? Good is not the child of
cruelty.

Question. Do you think that the vivisectionists do their
work without anaesthetics ? Do they not, as a rule, give
something to deaden pain ?

Answer. Here is where the trouble is. Now and then one
uses chloroform, but the great majority do not. They
claim that it interferes with the value of the experiment,
and, as I said before, they object to the expense. Why
should they care for what the animals suffer? They inflict
the most horrible and useless pain, and they try the silliest
experiments — experiments of no possible use or advantage.

For instance : They flay a dog to see how long he can

INTERVIEWS. 571

live without his skin. Is this trifling experiment of any
importance ? Suppose the dog can live a week or a month
or a year, what then ? What must the real character of
the scientific wretch be who would try an experiment like
this? Is such a man seeking the good of his fellow-men ?

So, these scientists starve animals until they slowly die ;
watch them from day to day as life recedes from the
extremities, and watch them until the final surrender, to see
how long the heart will flutter without food; without
water. They keep a diary of their sufferings, of their
whinings and meanings, of their insanity. And this diary
is published and read with joy and eagerness by other
scientists in like experiments. Of what possible use is it to
know how long a dog or a horse can live without food ?

So, they take animals, dogs and horses, cut through the
flesh with the knife, remove some of the back bone with the
chisel, then divide the spinal marrow, then touch it with
red hot wires for the purpose of finding, as they say, the
connection of nerves; and the animal, thus vivisected, is
left to die.

A good man will not voluntarily inflict pain. He will
see that his horse has food, if he can procure it, and if he
cannot procure the food, he will end the sufferings of the
animal in the best and easiest way. So, the good man
would rather remain in ignorance as to how pain is trans
mitted than to cut open the body of a living animal, divide
the marrow and torture the nerves with red hot iron. Of
what use can it be to take a dog, tie him down and cut out
one of his kidneys to see if he can live with the other ?

These horrors are perpetrated only by the cruel and the
heartless — so cruel and so heartless that they are utterly
unfit to be trusted with a human life. They iunoculate
animals with a virus of disease; they put poison in their
eyes until rottenness destroys the sight ; until the poor
brutes become insane. They give them a disease that re-

572 * INTERVIEWS.

sembles hydrophobia, that is accompanied by the most
frightful convulsions and spasms. They put them in ovens
to see what degree of heat it is that kills. They also try
the effect of cold ; they slowly drown them ; they poison
them with the venom of snakes ; they force foreign sub
stances into their blood, and, by inoculation, into their eyes;
and then watch and record their agonies ; their sufferings.

Question. Don't you think that some good has been ac
complished, some valuable information obtained, by vivi
section ?

Answer. I don't think any valuable information has been
obtained by the vivisection of animals without chloroform
that could not have been obtained with chloroform. And
to answer the question broadly as to whether any good
has been accomplished by vivisection, I say no.

According to the best information that I can obtain, the
vivisectors have hindered instead of helped. Lawson Tait,
who stands at the head of his profession in England, the
best surgeon in Great Britain, says that all this cutting and
roasting and freezing and torturing of animals has done
harm instead of good. He says publicly that the vivi
sectors have hindered the progress of surgery. He de
clares that they have not only done no good, but asserts
that they have done only harm. The same views according
to Doctor Tait, are entertained by Bell, Syme and Fur-
gusson.

Many have spoken of Darwin as though he were a vivi-
sector. This is not true. All that has been accomplished
by these torturers of dumb and helpless animals amounts to
nothing. We have obtained from these gentlemen Koch's
cure for consumption, Pasteur's factory of hydrophobia and
Brown-Sequard's elixir of life. These three failures, gigan
tic, absurd, ludicrous, are the great accomplishments of
vivisection.
Surgery has advanced, not by the heartless tormentors of

INTERVIEWS. • 573

animals., but by the use of anaesthetics — that is to say,
chloroform, ether and cocaine. The cruel wretches, the
scientific assassins, have accomplished nothing. Hundreds
of thousands of animals have suffered every pain that
nerves can feel, and all for nothing — nothing except to
harden the heart and to make criminals of men.

They have not given anaesthetics to these animals, but
they have been guilty of the last step in cruelty. They
have given curare, a drug that attacks the centres of motion,
that makes it impossible for the animal to move, so that
when under its influence, no matter what the pain may be,
the animal lies still. This curare not only destroys the
power of motion, but increases the sensitiveness of the
nerves. To give this drug and then to dissect the living
animal is the extreme of cruelty. Beyond this, heartless-
ness cannot go.

Question. Do you know that you have been greatly criti
cised for what you have said on this subject?

Answer. Yes ; I have read many criticisms ; but what of
that. It is impossible for the ingenuity of man to say
anything in defence of cruelty — of heartlessness. So, it is
impossible for the defenders of vivisection to show any good
that has been accomplished without the use of anaesthet
ics. The chemist ought to be able to determine what is
and what is not poison. There is no need of torturing the
animals. So, this giving to animals diseases is of no im
portance to man — not the slightest ; and nothing has been
discovered in bacteriology so far that has been of use or
that is of benefit.

Personally, I admit that all have the right to criticise ;
and my answer to the critics is, that they do not know the
facts; or, knowing them, they are interested in preventing
a knowledge of these facts coming to the public. Vivi
section should be controlled by law. No animal should
be allowed to be tortured. And to cut up a living animal

574 INTERVIEWS.

not under the influence of chloroform or ether, should be a
penitentiary offence.

A perfect reply to all the critics who insist that great
good has been done is to repeat the three names — Koch,
Pasteur and Brown-Sequard.

The foundation of civilization is not cruelty ; it is justice,

generosity, mercy. — Evening Telegram, New York, September 30, 1893.

DIVORCE.

Question. The Herald would like to have you give your
ideas on divorce. On last Sunday in your lecture you said
a few words on the subject, but only a few. Do you think
the laws governing divorce ought to be changed ?

Answer. We obtained our ideas about divorce from the
Hebrews — from the New Testament and the church. In
the Old Testament woman is not considered of much im
portance. The wife was the property of the husband.

" Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ox or his wife."
In this commandment the wife is put on an equality with
other property, so under certain conditions the husband
could put away his wife, but the wife could not put away
her husband.

In the New Testament there is little in favor of mar
riage, and really nothing as to the rights of wives. Christ
said nothing in favor of marriage, and never married. So
far as I know, none of the apostles had families. St. Paul
was opposed to marriage, and allowed it only as a choice of
evils. In those days it was imagined by the Christians that
the world was about to be purified by fire, and that they
would be changed into angels.

The early Christians were opposed to marriage, and the
" fathers " looked upon woman as the source of all evil.
They did not believe in divorces. They thought that if
people loved each other better than they did God, and got

INTERVIEWS. 575

married, they ought to be held to the bargain, no matter
what happened.

These "fathers" were, for the most part, ignorant and
hateful savages, and had no more ideas of right and wrong
than wild beasts.

The church insisted that marriage was a sacrament, and
that God, in some mysterious way, joined husband and wife
in marriage — that he was one of the parties to the contract,
and that only death could end it.

Of course, this supernatural view of marriage is perfectly
absurd. If there be a God, there certainly have been mar
riages that he did not approve, and certain it is that God
can have no interest in keeping husbands and wives to
gether who never should have married.

Some of the preachers insist that God instituted marriage
in the Garden of Eden. We now know that there was no
Garden of Eden, and that woman was not made from the
first man's rib. Nobody with any real sense believes this
now. The institution of marriage was not established by
Jehovah. Neither was it established by Christ, nor any of
his apostles.

In considering the question of divorce, the supernatural
should be discarded. We should take into consideration
only the effect upon human beings. The gods should be
allowed to take care of themselves.

Is it to the interest of a husband and wife to live to
gether after love has perished and when they hate each
other ? Will this add to their happiness ? Should a woman
be compelled to remain the wife of a man who hates and
abuses her, and whom she loathes ? Has society any in
terest in forcing women to live with men they hate ?

There is no real marriage without love, and in the mar
riage state there is no morality without love. A woman
who remains the wife of a man whom she despises, or does
not love, corrupts her soul. She becomes degraded, pol-

576 INTERVIEWS.

luted, and feels that her flesh has been soiled. Under such
circumstances a good woman suffers the agonies of moral
death. It may be said that the woman can leave her hus
band ; that she is not compelled to live in the same house
or to occupy the same room. If she has the right to leave,
has she the right to get a new home ? Should a woman be
punished for having married ? Women do not marry the
wrong men on purpose. Thousands of mistakes are made
— are these mistakes sacred ? Must they be preserved to
please God ?

What good can it do God to keep people married who
hate each other ? What good can it do the community to
keep such people together ?

Question. Do you consider marriage a contract or a
sacrament?

Answer. Marriage is the most important contract that
human beings can make. No matter whether it is called a
contract or a sacrament, it remains the same. A true mar
riage is a natural concord or agreement of souls — a harmony
in which discord is not even imagined. It is a mingling so
perfect that only one seems to exist. All other considera
tions are lost. The present seems eternal. In this supreme
moment there is no shadow, or the shadow is as luminous
as light.

When two beings thus love, thus unite, this is the true
marriage of soul and soul. The idea of contract is lost.
Duty and obligation are instantly changed into desire and
joy, and two lives, like uniting streams, flow on as one.

This is real marriage.

Now, if the man turns out to be a wild beast, if he de
stroys the happiness of the wife, why should she remain
his victim ?

If she wants a divorce, she should have it. The divorce
will not hurt God or the community. As a matter of fact,
it will save a life.

INTERVIEWS. 577

No man not poisoned by superstition will object to the
release of an abused wife. In such a case only savages can
object to a divorce. The man who wants courts and legis
latures to force a woman to live with him is a monster.

Question. Do you believe that the divorced should be
allowed to marry again ?

Answer. Certainly. Has the woman whose rights have
been outraged no right to build another home ? Must this
woman, full of kindness, affection and health, be chained
until death releases her ? Is there no future for her ? Must
she be an outcast forever ? Can she never sit by her own
hearth, with the arms of her children about her neck, and
by her side a husband who loves and protects her ?

There are no two sides to this question.

All human beings should be allowed to correct their
mistakes. If the wife has flagrantly violated the contract
of marriage, the husband should be given a divorce. If
the wife wants a divorce, if she loathes her husband, if she
no longer loves him, then the divorce should be granted.

It is immoral for a woman to live as the wife of a man
whom she abhors. The home should be pure. Children
should be well-born. Their parents should love each other.

Marriages are made by men and women, not by society,
not by the state, not by the church, not by the gods.
Nothing is moral, that does not tend to the well-being of
sentient beings.

The good home is the unit of good government. The
hearthstone is the corner-stone of civilization. Society is
not interested in the preservation of hateful homes. It is
not to the interest of society that good women should be
enslaved or that they should become mothers by husbands
whom they hate.

Most of the laws about divorce are absurd or cruel, and

OUght tO be repealed. — The Herald, New York, February, 1897.

MUSIC, NEWSPAPERS, LYNCHING AND
ARBITRATION.

Qttestion. How do you enjoy staying in Chicago?

Answer. Well, I am as happy as a man can be when he
is away from home. I was at the opera last night. I am
always happy when I hear the music of Wagner interpreted
by such a genius as Seidl. I do not believe there is a man
in the world who has in his brain and heart more of the real
spirit of Wagner than Anton Seidl. He knows how to
lead, how to phrase and shade, how to rush and how to
linger, and to express every passion and every mood. So I
was happy last night to hear him. Then I heard Edouard
de Reszke, the best of all bass singers, with tones of a great
organ, and others soft and liquid, and Jean de Reszke, a
great tenor, who sings the "Swan Song" as though
inspired ; and I liked Bispham, but hated his part. He is
a great singer; so is Mme. Litvinne.

So, I can say that I am enjoying Chicago. In fact, I
always did. I was here when the town was small, not
much but huts and hogs, lumber and mud ; and now it is
one of the greatest of cities. It makes me happy just to
think of the difference. I was born the year Chicago was
incorporated. In my time matches were invented. Steam
navigation became really useful. The telegraph was in
vented. Gas was discovered and applied to practical uses,
and electricity was made known in its practical workings to
mankind. Thus, it is seen the world is progressing ; men
are becoming civilized. But the process of civilization even
now is slow. In one or two thousand years we may hope
to see a vast improvement in man's condition. We may

(578)

INTERVIEWS. 579

expect to have the employer so far civilized that he will not
try to make money for money's sake, but in order that he
may apply it to good uses, to the amelioration of his fellow-
man's condition. We may also expect to see the working-
man, the employe, so far civilized that he will know it is
impossible and undesirable for him to attempt to fix the
wages paid by his employer. We may in a thousand or
more years reasonably expect that the employe will be so
far civilized and become sufficiently sensible to know that
strikes and threats and mob violence can never improve his
condition. Altruism is nonsense, craziness.

Question. Is Chicago as liberal, intellectually, as New
York?

Answer. I think so. Of course you will find thousands
of free, thoughtful people in New York — people who think
and want others to do the same. So, there are thousands
of respectable people who are centuries behind the age.
In other words, you will find all kinds. I presume the
same is true of Chicago. I find many liberal people here,
and some not quite so liberal.

Some of the papers here seem to be edited by real pious
men. On last Tuesday the Times-Herald asked pardon of
its readers for having given a report of my lecture. That
editor must be pious. In the same paper, columns were
given to the prospective prize-fight at Carson City. All
the news about the good Corbett and the orthodox Fitz-
simmons — about the training of the gentlemen who are
going to attack each others' jugulars and noses; who are
expected to break jaws, blacken eyes, and peel foreheads
in a few days, to settle the question of which can bear the
most pounding. In this great contest and in all its vulgar
details, the readers of the Times-Herald are believed by the
editor of that religious daily to take great interest.

The editor did not ask the pardon of his readers for giv
ing so much space to the nose-smashing sport. No I, He

580 INTERVIEWS.

knew that would fill their souls with delight, and, so know
ing, he reached the correct conclusion that such people
would not enjoy anything that I had said. The editor did
a wise thing and catered to a large majority of his readers.
I do not think that we have as religious a daily paper in
New York as the Times-Herald. So the editor of the
Times-Herald took the ground that men with little learning,
in youth, might be agnostic, but as they grew sensible they
would become orthodox. When he wrote that he was
probably thinking of Humboldt and Darwin, of Huxley
and Haeckel. May be Herbert Spencer was in his mind ,
but I think that he must have been thinking of a few boys
in his native village.

Question. What do you think about prize-fighting any
way ?

Answer. Well, I think that prize-fighting is worse, if
possible, than revival meetings. Next to fighting to kill,
as they did in the old Roman days, I think the modern
prize-fight is the most disgusting and degrading of exhibi
tions. All fights, whether cock-fights, bull-fights or
pugilistic encounters, are practiced and enjoyed only by
savages. No matter what office they hold, what wealth or
education they have, they are simply savages. Under no
possible circumstances would I witness a prize-fight or a
bull-fight or a dog-fight. The Marquis of Queensbury was
once at my house, and I found his opinions were the same
as mine. Everyone thinks he had something to do with the
sport of prize-fighting, but he did not, except to make
some rules once for a college boxing contest. He told me
that he never saw but one prize-fight in his life, and that
made him sick.

Question. How are you on the arbitration treaty ?

Answer. I am for it with all my heart. I have read it,
and read it with care, and to me it seems absolutely fair.
England and America should set an example to the world .

INTERVIEWS. 581

The English-speaking people have reason enough and
sense enough, I hope, to settle their differences by argument
— by reason. Let us get the wild beast out of us. Two
great nations like England and America appealing to force,
arguing with shot and shell! What is education worth?
Is what we call civilization a sham ? Yes, I believe in
peace, in arbitration, in settling disputes like reasonable,
human beings. All that war can do is to determine who is
the stronger. It throws no light on any question, advances
no argument. There is a point to a bayonet, but no logic.
After the war is over the victory does not tell which nation
was right. Civilized men take their differences to courts
or arbitrators. Civilized nations should do the same.
There ought to be an international court.

Let every man do all he can to prevent war — to prevent
the waste, the cruelties, the horrors that follow every flag
on every field of battle. It is time that man was human —
time that the beast was out of his heart.

Question. What do you think of McKinley's inaugural ?

Answer. It is good, honest, clear, patriotic and sensible.
There is one thing in it that touched me; I agree with him
that lynching has to be stopped. You see that now we are
citizens of the United States, not simply of the State in
which we happen to live. I take the ground that it is the
business of the United States to protect its citizens, not
only when they are in some other country, but when they
are at home. The United States cannot discharge this
obligation by allowing the States to do as they please.
Where citizens are being lynched the Government should
interfere. If the Governor of some barbarian State says
that he cannot protect the lives of citizens, then the United
States should, if it took the entire Army and Navy.

Question. What is }^our opinion of charity organizations ?

Answer. I think that the people who support them are
good and generous — splendid — but I have a poor opinion

582 INTERVIEWS.

of the people in charge. As a rule, I think they are cold,
impudent and heartless. There is too much circumlocu
tion, or too many details and too little humanity. The
Jews are exceedingly charitable. I think that in New York
the men who are doing the most for their fellow-men are
Jews. Nathan Strauss is trying to feed the hungry, warm
the cold, and clothe the naked. For the most part, or
ganized charities are, I think, failures. A real charity has
to be in the control of a good man, a real sympathetic, a
sensible man, one who helps others to help themselves.
Let a hungry man go to an organized society and it re
quires several days to satisfy the officers that the man is
hungry. Meanwhile he will probably starve to death.

Question. Do you believe in free text-books in the public
schools ?

Answer. I do not care about the text-book question.
But I am in favor of the public school. Nothing should be
taught that somebody does not know. No superstition —
nothing but science.

Question. There has been a good deal said lately about
your suicide theology, Colonel. Do you still believe that
suicide is justifiable?

Answer. Certainly. When a man is useless to himself
and to others he has the right to determine what he will do
about living. The only thing to be considered is a man's
obligation to his fellow-beings and to himself. I don't take
into consideration any supernatural nonsense. If God
wants a man to stay here he ought to make it more com
fortable for him.

Question. Since you expounded your justification of sui
cide, Colonel, I believe you have had some cases of suicide
laid at your door ?

Answer. Oh, yes. Every suicide that has happened
since that time has been charged to me. I don't know how
the people account for the suicides before my time. I have

INTERVIEWS. 583

not yet heard of my being charged with the death of Cato,
but that may yet come to pass. I was reading the other
day that the rate of suicide in Germany is increasing. I
suppose my article has been translated into German.

Question. How about lying, Colonel ? Is it ever right
to lie ?

Answer. Of course, sometimes. In war when a man is
captured by the enemy he ought to lie to them to mislead
them. What we call strategy is nothing more than lies.
For the accomplishment of a good end, for instance, the
saving of a woman's reputation, it is many times perfectly
right to lie. As a rule, people ought to tell the truth. If
it is right to kill a man to save your own life it certainly
ought to be right to fool him for the same purpose. I
would rather be deceived than killed, wouldn't you? — The

Inter-Ocean, Chicago, Illinois, March, 1897.

A VISIT TO SHAW'S GARDEN.

Question. I was told that you came to St. Louis on your
wedding trip some thirty years ago and went to Shaw's
Garden ?

Answer. Yes; we were married on the i3th of Febru
ary, 1862. We were here in St. Louis, and we did visit
Shaw's Garden, and we thought it perfectly beautiful.
Afterward we visited the Kew Gardens in London, but
our remembrance of Shaw's left Kew in the shade.

Of, course, I have been in St. Louis many times, my
first visit being, I think, in 1854. I have always liked the
town. I was acquainted at one time with a great many of
your old citizens. Most of them have died, and I know
but few of the present generation. I used to stop at the
old Planter's House, and I was there quite often during
the war. In those days I saw Hackett as Falstaff, the best
Falstaff that ever lived. Ben de Bar was here then, and
the Maddern sisters, and now the daughter of one of the

584 INTERVIEWS.

sisters, Minnie Maddern Fiske, is one of the greatest act
resses in the world. She has made a wonderful hit in New
York this season. And so the ebb and flow of life goes on
— the old pass and the young arrive.

" Death and progress ! " It may be that death is, after
all, a great blessing. Maybe it gives zest and flavor to life,
ardor and flame to love. At the same time I say " long
life " to all my friends.

I want to live — I get great happiness out of life. I
enjoy the company of my friends. I enjoy seeing
the faces of the ones I love. I enjoy art and music.
I love Shakespeare and Burns ; love to hear the music
of Wagner ; love to see a good play. I take pleasure in eat
ing and sleeping. The fact is, I like to breathe.

I want to get all the happiness out of life that I can. I
want to suck the orange dry, so that when death comes
nothing but the peelings will be left, and so I say : " Long

life J » — rite Republic, fit. Louis, April 11, 1897.

THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY DISCUSSION AND
THE WHIPPING-POST.

Question. What is your opinion as to the action of the

President on the Venezuelan matter?

Answer. In my judgment, the President acted in haste
and without thought. It may be that it would have been
well enough for him to have laid the correspondence be
fore Congress and asked for an appropriation for a com
mission to ascertain the facts, to the end that our Govern
ment might intelligently act. There was no propriety in
going further than that. To almost declare war before the
facts were known was a blunder — almost a crime. For my
part, I do not think the Monroe doctrine has anything to
do with the case. Mr. Olney reasons badly, and it is only
hv a perversion of facts, and an exaggeration of facts, and
i>y calling in question th? motives of England that it is

INTERVIEWS. 585

possible to conclude that the Monroe doctrine has or can
have anything to do with the controversy. The President
went out of his way to find a cause of quarrel. Nobody
doubts the courage of the American people, and we for that
reason can afford to be sensible and prudent. Valor and
discretion should go together. Nobody doubts the courage
of England.

America and England are the leading nations, and in
their keeping, to a great extent, is the glory of the future.
They should be at peace. Should a difference arise it
should be settled without recourse to war.

Fighting settles nothing but the relative strength. No
light is thrown on the cause of the conflict — on the question
or fact that caused the war.

Question. Do you think that there is any danger of war ?

Answer. If the members of Congress really represent the
people, then there is danger. But I do not believe the
people will really want to fight about a few square miles of
malarial territory in Venezuela — something in which they
have no earthly or heavenly interest. The people do not
wish to fight for fight's sake. When they understand the
question they will regard the administration as almost in
sane.

The message has already cost us more than the War of
1812 or the Mexican war, or both. Stocks and bonds have
decreased in value several hundred millions, and the end is
not yet. It may be that it will, on account of the panic, be
impossible for the Government to maintain the gold stand
ard — the reserve. Then gold would command a premium,
the Government be unable to redeem the greenbacks, and
the result would be financial chaos, and all this the result
of Mr. Cleveland's curiosity about a boundary line between
two countries, in neither of which we have any interest, and
this curiosity has already cost us more than both countries,
including the boundary line, are worth.

586 INTERVIEWS.

The President made a 'great mistake. So did the House
and Senate, and the poor people have paid a part of the
cost.

Question. What is your opinion of the Gerry Whipping-
Post bill ?

Answer. I see that it has passed the Senate, and yet I
think it a disgrace to the State. How the Senators can go
back to torture, to the Dark Ages, to the custom of savagery,
is beyond belief. I hope that the House is nearer civilized,
and that the infamous bill will be defeated. If, however,
the bill should pass, then I hope Governor Morton will
veto it.

Nothing is more disgusting, more degrading, than the
whipping-post. It degrades the whipped and the whipper.
It degrades all who witness the flogging. What kind of a
person will do the whipping? Men who would apply the
lash to the naked backs of criminals would have to be as
low as the criminals, and probably a little lower.

The shadow of the whipping-post does not fall on any
civilized country, and never will. The next thing we know
Mr. Gerry will probably introduce some bill to brand crimi
nals on the forehead or cut off their ears and slit their noses.
This is in the same line, and is born of the same hellish
spirit. There is no reforming power in torture, in bruising
and mangling the flesh.

If the bill becomes a law, I hope it will provide that
the lash shall be applied by Mr. Gerry and his suc
cessors in office. Let those pretended enemies of cruelty
enjoy themselves. If the bill passes, I presume Mr. Gerry
could get a supply of knouts from Russia, as that country

has just abolished the whipping-post — The Journal, New York,
December 24, 1896.

COLONEL SHEPARD'S STAGE HORSES.*

It might not be in good taste for me to say anything
about Colonel Shepard's horses. He might think me prej
udiced. But I am satisfied horses cannot live on faith or
on the substance of things hoped for. It is far better for
the horse, to feed him without praying, than to pray without
feeding him. It is better to be kind even to animals, than to
quote Scripture in small capitals. Now, I am not saying
anything against Colonel Shepard. I do not know how he
feeds his horses. If he is as good and kind as he is pious,
then I have nothing to say. Maybe he does not allow the
horses to break the Sabbath by eating. They are so slow
that they make one think of a fast. They put me in mind
of the Garden of Eden — the rib story. When I watch
them on the avenue I too, fall to quoting Scripture, and
say, " Can these dry bones live? " Still, I have a delicacy
on this subject ; I hate to think about it, and I think the

horses feel the Same Way. — Morning Advertiser, New York, January
21,1892.

A REPLY TO THE REV. L. A. BANKS.

Question. Have you read the remarks made about you by
the Rev. Mr. Banks, and what do you think of what he
said?

Answer. The reverend gentleman pays me a great com
pliment by comparing me to a circus. Everybody enjoys
the circus. They love to see the acrobats, the walkers on

* One of Colonel Shepard'e equine wrecks was picked up on Fifth avenue yesterday by
the Prevention of Cruelty Society, and was laid up for repairs. The horse was about
twenty-eight years old, badly foundered, and its leg was cut and bleeding. It was the
leader of three that had been hauling a Fifth avenue stage, and, according to the Society's
agents, v, as in about as bad a condition as a horpe could be and keep on his feet. The
other two horses were little better, neither of them being fit to drive.

Colonel Shcpard's scrawny nags have lonj: been an eyesore to Colonel Robert G.
Ingersoll, who is compelled to see them from bin windows at number 400 Fifth avenue-
He said last night : (687)

588 INTERVIEWS.

the tight rope, the beautiful girls on the horses, and they
laugh at the wit of the clown. They are delighted with the
jugglers, with the music of the band. They drink the
lemonade, eat the colored popcorn and laugh until they
nearly roll off their seats. Now the circus has a few
animals so that Christians can have an excuse for going.
Think of the joy the circus gives to the boys and girls.
They look at the show bills, see the men and women flying
through the air, bursting through paper hoops, the
elephants standing on their heads, and the clowns, in
curious clothes, with hands on their knees and open
mouths, supposed to be filled with laughter.

All the boys and girls for many miles around know the
blessed day. They save their money, obey their parents,
and when the circus comes they are on hand. They see
the procession and then they see the show. They are all
happy. No sermon ever pleased them as much, and in
comparison even the Sunday school is tame and dull.

To feel that I give as much joy as the circus, fills me
with pleasure. What chance would the Rev. Dr. Banks
stand against a circus ?

The reverend gentleman has 'done me a great honor, and
I tender him my sincere thanks.

Question. Dr. Banks says that you write only one lecture
a year, while preachers write a brand new one every week
— that if you did that people would tire of you. What
have you to say to that ?

Answer. It may be that great artists paint only one
picture a year, and it may be that sign painters can do
several jobs a day. Still, I would not say that the sign
painters were superior to the artists. There is quite a dif
ference between a sculptor and a stone-cutter.

There are thousands of preachers and thousands and
thousands of sermons preached every year. Has any
orthodox minister in the year 1898 given just one para-

INTERVIEWS. 589

graph to literature ? Has any orthodox preacher uttered
one great thought, clothed in perfect English that thrilled
the hearers like music — one great strophe that became one
of the treasures of memory ?

I will make the question a little broader. Has any
orthodox preacher, or any preacher in an orthodox pulpit
uttered a paragraph of what may be called sculptured
speech since Henry Ward Beecher died ? I do not wonder
that the sermons are poor. Their doctrines have been dis
cussed for centuries. There is little chance for originality ;
they not only thresh old straw, but they thresh straw that
has been threshed a million times — straw in which there
has not been a grain of wheat for hundreds of years. No
wonder that they have nervous prostration. No wonder
that they need vacations, and no wonder that their con
gregations enjoy the vacations as keenly as the ministers
themselves. Better deliver a real good address fifty-two
times than fifty-two poor ones — just for the sake of variety.

Question. Dr. Banks says that the tendency at present is
not toward Agnosticism, but toward Christianity. What
is your opinion ?

Answer. When I was a boy " Infidels " were very rare.
A man who denied the inspiration of the Bible was regarded
as a monster. Now there are in this country- millions who
regard the Bible as the work of ignorant and superstitious
men. A few years ago the Bible was the standard. All
scientific theories were tested by the Bible. Now science
is the standard and the Bible is tested by that.

Dr. Banks did not mention the names of the great scien
tists who are or were Christians, but he probably thought
of Laplace, Humboldt, Haeckel, Huxley, Spencer, Tyndall,
Darwin, Helmholtz and Draper. When he spoke of Chris
tian statesmen he likely thought of Jefferson, Franklin,
Washington, Paine and Lincoln — or he may have thought
of Pierce, Fillmore and Buchanan.

590

INTERVIEWS.

But, after all, there is no argument in names. A man is
not necessarily great because he holds office or wears a
crown or talks in a pulpit. Facts, reasons, are better than
names. But it seems to me that nothing can be plainer
than that the church is losing ground— that the people
are discarding the creeds and that superstition has passed
the zenith of its power.

Question. Dr. Banks says that Christ did not mention the
Western Hemisphere because God does nothing for men
that they can do for themselves. What have you to say ?

Answer. Christ said nothing about the Western Hemis
phere because he did not know that it existed. He did not
know the shape of the earth. He was not a scientist —
never even hinted at any science — never told anybody to
investigate — to think. His idea was that this life should
be spent in preparing for the next. For all the evils of
this life, and the next, faith was his remedy.

I see from the report in the paper that Dr. Banks, after
making the remarks about me preached a sermon on
" Herod the Villain in the Drama of Christ." Who made
Herod ? Dr. Banks will answer that God made him. Did
God know what Herod would do? Yes. Did he know
that he would cause the children to be slaughtered in his
vain efforts to kill the infant Christ ? Yes. Dr. Banks
will say that God is not responsible for Herod because he
gave Herod freedom. Did God know how Herod would
use his freedom ? Did he know that he would become the
villain in the drama of Christ ? Yes. Who, then, is really
responsible for the acts of Herod?

If I could change a stone into a human being, and if I
could give this being freedom of will, and if I knew that
if I made him he would murder a man, and if with that
knowledge I made him, and he did commit a murder, who
would be the real murderer ?

Will Dr. Banks in his fifty-two sermons of next year

INTERVIEWS. 591 T

show that his God is not responsible for the crimes of
Herod ?

No doubt Dr. Banks is a good man, and no doubt
he thinks that liberty of thought leads to hell, and
honestly believes that all doubt comes from the Devil.
I do not blame him. He thinks as he must. He is a pro
duct of conditions.

He ought to be my friend because I am doing the best I

Can to civilize his Congregation. — The Plaindealer, Cleveland, Ohio,
1898.

CUBA— ZOLA AND THEOSOPHY.

Question. What do you think, Colonel, of the Cuban sit
uation ?

Answer. What I know about this question is known
by all. I suppose that the President has information that
I know nothing about. Of course, all my sympathies are
with the Cubans. They are making a desperate — an heroic
struggle for their freedom. For many years they have
been robbed and trampled under foot. Spain is, and
always has been, a terrible master — heartless and infamous.
There is no language with which to tell what Cuba has
suffered. In my judgment, this country should assist the
Cubans. We ought to acknowledge the independence of
that island, and we ought to feed the starving victims of
Spain. For years we have been helping Spain. Cleveland
did all he could to prevent the Cubans from getting arms
and men. This was a criminal mistake — a mistake that
even Spain did not appreciate. All this should instantly
be reversed, and we should give aid to Cuba. The war
that Spain is waging shocks every civilized man. Spain has
always been the same. In Holland, in Peru, in Mexico,
she was infinitely cruel, and she is the same to-day. She
loves to torture, to imprison, to degrade, to kill. Her idea
of perfect happiness is to shed blood. Spain is a legacy ot

S92

INTERVIEWS.

the Dark Ages. She belongs to the den, the care period.
She has no business to exist. She is a blot, a stain on the
map of the world. Of course there are some good Span
iards, but they are not in control.

I want Cuba to be free. I want Spain driven from the
Western World. She has already starved five hundred
thousand Cubans — poor, helpless non-combatants. Among
the helpless she is like a hyena — a tiger among lambs.
This country ought to stop this gigantic crime. We should
do this in the name of humanity — for the sake of the starv
ing, the dying.

Question. Do you think we are going to have war with
Spain ?

Answer. I do not think there will be war. Unless Spain
is insane, she will not attack the United States. She is
bankrupt. No nation will assist her. A civilized nation
would be ashamed to take her hand, to be her friend. She
has not the power to put down the rebellion in Cuba. How
then can she hope to conquer this country ? She is full of
brag and bluster. Of course she will play her hand for all
it is worth, so far as talk goes. She will double her fists
and make motions. She will assume the attitude of war,
but she will never fight. Should she commence hostilities,
the war would be short. She would lose her navy. The
little commerce she has would be driven from the sea. She
would drink to the dregs the cup of humiliation and dis
grace. I do not believe that Spain is insane enough to fire
upon our flag. I know that there is nothing too mean, too
cruel for her to do, but still she must have sense enough to
try and save her own life. No, I think there will be no
war, but I believe that Cuba will be free. My opinion is
that the Maine was blown up from the outside — blown up
by Spanish officers, and I think the report of the Board will
be to that effect. Such a crime ought to redden even the
cheeks of Spain. As soon as this fact is known, other

INTERVIEWS. 593

nations will regard Spain with hatred and horror. If the
Maine was destroyed by Spain we will ask for indemnity.
The people insist that that account be settled and at once.
Possibly we may attack Spain. There is the only danger
of war. We must avenge that crime. The destruction of
two hundred and fifty-nine Americans must be avenged.
Free Cuba must be their monument. I hope for the sake
of human nature that the Spanish did not destroy the
Maine. I hope it was the result of an accident. I hope
there is to be no war, but Spain must be driven from the
New World.

Question. What about Zola's trial and conviction ?

Answer. It was one of the most infamous trials in the
history of the world. Zola is a great man, a genius, the
best man in France. His trial was a travesty on justice.
The judge acted like a bandit. The proceedings were a
disgrace to human nature. The jurors must have been
ignorant beasts. The French have disgraced themselves.
Long live Zola.

Question. Having expressed yourself less upon the sub
ject of Theosophy than upon other religious beliefs, and as
Theosophy denies the existence of a God as worshiped by
Christianity, what is your idea of the creed ? v,

Answer. Insanity. I think it is a mild form of delusion
and illusion ; vague, misty, obscure, half dream, mixed
with other mistakes and fragments of facts — a little philoso
phy, absurdity — a few impossibilities — some improbabilities
— some accounts of events that never happened — some
prophecies that will not come to pass — a structure without
foundation. But the Theosophists are good people ; kind
and honest. Theosophy is based on the supernatural and is
just as absurd as the orthodox creeds. — The Courier journal,

Louisville, Ky., February, 1898.

HOW TO BECOME AN ORATOR.

Question. What advice would you give to a young man
who was ambitious to become a successful public speaker
or orator ?

Answer. In the first place, I would advise him to have
something to say — something worth saying — something
that people would be glad to hear. This is the important
thing. Back of the art of speaking must be the power to
think. Without thoughts words are empty purses. Most
people imagine that almost any words uttered in a loud
voice and accompanied by appropriate gestures, constitute
an oration. I would advise the young man to stud}' his
subject, to find what others had thought, to look at it from
all sides. Then I would tell him to write out his thoughts
or to arrange them in his mind, so that he would know
exactly what he was going to say. Waste no time on the
how until you are satisfied with the what. After you know
what you are to say. then you can think of how it should be
said. Then you can think about tone, emphasis, and
gesture; but if you really understand what you say,
emphasis, tone, and gesture will take care of themselves.
All these should come from the inside. They should be in
perfect harmony with the feelings. Voice and gesture
should be governed by the emotions. They should uncon
sciously be in perfect agreement with the sentiments. The
orator should be true to his subject, should avoid any
reference to himself.

The great column of his argument should be unbroken.
He can adorn it with vines and flowers, but they should not
be in such profusion as to hide the column. He should
give variety of episode by illustrations, but they should be

(514)

INTERVIEWS. 595

used only for the purpose of adding strength to the argu
ment. The man who wishes to become an orator should
study language. He should know the deeper meaning of
words. He should understand the vigor and velocity of
verbs and the color of adjectives. He should know how to
sketch a scene, to paint a picture, to give life and action.
He should be a poet and a dramatist, a painter and an
actor. He should cultivate his imagination. He should
become familiar with the great poetry and fiction, with
splendid and heroic deeds. He should be a student of
Shakespeare. He should read and devour the great plays.
From Shakespeare he could learn the art of expression, of
compression, and all the secrets of the head and heart.

The great orator is full of variety — of surprises. Like a
juggler, he keeps the colored balls in the air. He expresses
himself in pictures. His speech is a panorama. By con
tinued change he holds the attention. The interest does
not flag. He does not allow himself to be anticipated. He
is always in advance. He does not repeat himself. A
picture is shown but once. So, an orator should avoid the
commonplace. There should be no stuffing, no filling. He
should put no cotton with his silk, no common metals with
his gold. He should remember that "gilded dust is not as
good as dusted gold." The great orator is honest, sincere.
He does not pretend. His brain and heart go together.
Every drop of his blood is convinced. Nothing is forced.
He knows exactly what he wishes to do — knows when he
has finished it, and stops.

Only a great orator knows when and how to close. Most
speakers go on after they are through. They are satisfied
only with a " lame and impotent conclusion." Most speakers
lack variety. They travel a straight and dusty road. The
great orator is full of episode. He convinces and charms
by indirection. He leaves the road, visits the fields,
wanders in the woods, listens to the murmurs of springs,

596 INTERVIEWS.

the songs of birds. He gathers flowers, scales the crags,
and conies back to the highway refreshed, invigorated. He
does not move in a straight line. He wanders and winds
like a stream.

Of course, no one can tell a man what to do to become
an orator. The great orator has that wonderful thing
called presence. He has that strange something known as
magnetism. He must have a flexible, musical voice,
capable of expressing the pathetic, the humorous, the
heroic. His body must move in unison with his thought.
He must be a reasoner, a logician. He must have a keen
sense of humor — of the laughable. He must have wit,
sharp and quick. He must have sympathy. His smiles
should be the neighbors of his tears. He must have
imagination. He should give eagles to the air, and painted
moths should flutter in the sunlight.

While I cannot tell a man what to do to become an
orator, I can tell him a few things not to do. There should
be no introduction to an oration. The orator should com
mence with his subject. There should be no prelude, no
flourish, no apology, no explanation. He should say
nothing about himself. Like a sculptor, he stands by his
block of stone. Every stroke is for a purpose. As he
works the form begins to appear. When the statue is
finished the workman stops. Nothing is more difficult
than a perfect close. Few poems, few pieces of music, few
novels end well. A good story, a great speech, a perfect
poem should end just at the proper point. The bud, the
blossom, the fruit. No delay. A great speech is a crystal
lization in its logic, an efflorescence in its poetry.

I have not heard many speeches. Most of the great
speakers in our country were before my time. I heard
Beecher, and he was an orator. He had imagination,
humor, and intensity. His brain was as fertile as the
valleys of the tropics. He was too broad, too philosophic,

INTERVIEWS. 597

too poetic for the pulpit. Now and then he broke the
fetters of his creed, escaped from his orthodox prison, and
became sublime.

Theodore Parker was an orator. He preached great
sermons. His sermons on " Old Age " and " Webster,"
and his address on " Liberty " were filled with great
thoughts, marvelously expressed. When he dealt with
human events, with realities, with things he knew, he was
superb. When he spoke of freedom, of duty, of living to
the ideal, of mental integrity, he seemed inspired.

Webster I never heard. He had great qualities; force,
dignity, clearness, grandeur ; but, after all, he worshiped
the past. He kept his back to the sunrise. There was no
dawn in his brain. He was not creative. He had no
spirit of prophecy. He lighted no torch. He was not true
to his ideal. He talked sometimes as though his head was
among the stars, but he stood in the gutter. In the name
of religion he tried to break the will of Stephen Girard — to
destroy the greatest charity in all the world ; and in the
name of the same religion he defended the Fugitive Slave
Law. Hie purpose was the same in both cases. He wanted
office. Yet he uttered a few very great paragraphs, rich
with thought, perfectly expressed.

Clay I never heard, but he must have had a commanding
presence, a chivalric bearing, an heroic voice. He cared
little for the past. He was a natural leader, a wonderful
talker — forcible, persuasive, convincing. He was not a
poet, not a master of metaphor, but he was practical. He
kept in view the end to be accomplished. He was the
opposite of Webster. Clay was the morning, Webster the
evening. Clay had large views, a wide horizon. He was
ample, vigorous, and a little tyrannical.

Benton was thoroughly commonplace. He never
uttered an inspired word. He was an intense egotist. No
subject was great enough to make him forget himself.

598 INTERVIEWS.

Calhoun was a political Calvinist— narrow, logical, dog
matic. He was not an orator. He delivered essays, not
orations. I think it was in 1851 that Kossuth visited this
country. He was an orator. There was no man, at that
time, under our flag, who could speak English as well as
he. In the first speech I read of Kossuth's was this line:
" Russia is the rock against which the sigh for freedom
breaks." In this you see the poet, the painter, the orator.

S. S. Prentiss was an orator, but, with the recklessness
of a gamester, he threw his life away. He said profound
and beautiful things, but he lacked application. He was
uneven, disproportioned — saying ordinary things on great
occasions, and now and then, without the slightest provo
cation, uttering the sublimest and most beautiful thoughts.

In my judgment, Corwin was the greatest orator of them
all. He had more arrows in his quiver. He had genius.
He was full of humor, pathos, wit, and logic. He was an
actor. His body talked. His meaning was in his eyes
and lips. Gov. O. P. Morton of Indiana had the greatest
power of statement of any man I ever heard. All the
argument was in his statement. The facts were perfectly
grouped. The conclusion was a necessity.

The best political speech I ever heard was made by
Gov. Richard J. Oglesby of Illinois. It had every element
of greatness — reason, humor, wit, pathos, imagination, and
perfect naturalness. That was in the grand years, long ago.
Lincoln had reason, wonderful humor, and wit, but his
presence was not good. His voice was poor, his gestures
awkward — but his thoughts were profound. His speech
at Gettysburg is one of the masterpieces of the world. The
word "here" is used four or five times too often. Leave
the " heres " out, and the speech is perfect.

Of course, I have heard a great many talkers, but orators
are few and far between. They are produced by victorious
nations — born in the midst of great events, of marvelous

INTERVIEWS. 599

achievements. They utter the thoughts, the aspirations
of their age. They clothe the children of the people in
the gorgeous robes of genius. They interpret the dreams.
With the poets, they prophesy. They fill the future with
heroic forms, with lofty deeds. They keep their faces
toward the dawn — toward the ever-coming day. — New York

Sun, April, 1898.

JOHN RUSSELL YOUNG AND EXPANSION.

Question. You knew John Russell Young, Colonel?

Answer. Yes, I knew him well and we were friends for
many years. He was a wonderfully intelligent man — knew
something about everything, had read most books worth
reading. He was one of the truest friends. He had a
genius for friendship. He never failed to do a favor when
he could, and he never forgot a favor. He had the genius
of gratitude. His mind was keen, smooth, clear, and he
really loved to think. I had the greatest admiration for his
character and I was shocked when I read of his death. I
did not know that he had been ill. All my heart goes out
to his wife — a lovely woman, now left alone with her boy.
After all, life is a fearful thing at best. The brighter the
sunshine the deeper the shadow.

Question. Are you in favor of expansion ?

Answer. Yes, I have always wanted more — I love to see
the Republic grow. I wanted the Sandwich Islands, wanted
Porto Rico, and I want Cuba if the Cubans want us. I
want the Philippines if the Filipinos want us — I do not
want to conquer and enslave those people. The war on the
Filipinos is a great mistake — a blunder — almost a crime.

If the President had declared his policy, then, if his
policy was right, there was no need of war. The President
should have told the Filipinos just exactly what he
wanted. It is a small business, after Dewey covered Manila
Bay with glory, to murder a lot of half-armed savages. We

6OO INTERVIEWS.

had no right to buy, because Spain had no right to sell the
Philippines. We acquired no rights on those islands by
whipping Spain.

Question. Do you think the President should have stated
his policy in Boston the other day ?

Answer. Yes, I think it would be better if he would un
pack his little budget— I like McKinley, but I liked him
just as well before he was President. He is a good man,
not because he is President, but because he is a man — you
know that real honor must be earned — people cannot give
honor — honor is not alms — it is wages. So, when a man is
elected President the best thing he can do is to remain a
natural man. Yes, I wish McKinley would brush all his
advisers to one side and say his say ; I believe his say
would be right.

Now, don't change this interview and make me say
something mean about McKinley, because I like him. The
other day, in Chicago, I had an interview and I wrote it
out. In that "interview" I said a few things about the
position of Senator Hoar. I tried to show that he was
wrong — but I took pains to express my admiration for
Senator Hoar. When the interview was published I was
made to say that Senator Hoar was a mud-head. I never
said or thought anything of the kind. Don't treat me as
that Chicago reporter did.

Question. What do you think of Atkinson's speech?

Answer. Well, some of it is good — but I never want to
see the soldiers of the Republic whipped. I am always on

our Side. — The Press, Philadelphia, February 20, 1899.

PSYCHICAL RESEARCH AND THE BIBLE.*

Question. What is your conception of true intellectual
hospitality ? As Truth can brook no compromises, has it
not the same limitations that surround social and domestic
hospitality ?

Answer. In the republic of mind we are all equals. Each
one is sceptered and crowned. Each one is the monarch of
his own realm. By " intellectual hospitality " I mean the
right of every one to think and to express his thought. It
makes no difference whether his thought is right or wrong.
If you are intellectually hospitable you will admit the right
of every human being to see for himself ; to hear with his
own ears, see with his own eyes, and think with his own

*As an incident in the life of any one favored with the privilege, a visit to the home of
Col. Robert G. Ingersoll la certain to be recalled as a most pleasant and profitable ex
perience. Although not a sympathizer with the great Agnostic's religious views, yet I
have long admiredyhis ability, his humor, his intellectual honesty and courage. And it
was with gratification that I accepted the good offices of a common friend who recently
offered t > introduce me to the Ingersoll domestic circle in Gramercy Park. Here I found
the genial Colonel, surrounded by his children, his grandchildren, and his amiable wife,
whose smiling greeting dispelled formality and breathed " welcome " in every syllable.
The family relationship seemed absolutely ideal— the very walls emitting an atmosphere
of art and music, of contentment and companionship, of mutual trust, happiness and
generosity.

But my chief desire was to elicit Colonel Ingersoll's personal views on questions related
to the New Thought and its attitude on matters on which he is known to nave very decid
ed opinions. My request for a private chat was cordially granted. During the conversa
tion that ensued — (the substance of which is presented to the readers of Mind in the
following paragraphs, with the Colonel's consent)— I was impressed most deeply, not by
the force of his arguments, but by the sincerity of his convictions. Among some of his
more violent opponents, who presumably lack other opportunities of becoming known, it
is the fashion to accuse Ingersoll of having really no belief in his own opinions. But, if
he convinced me of little else, he certainly, without effort, satisfied mv mind that this ac
cusation is a slander. Utterly mistaken in his views he may be ; but if so, hia errors
are more honest than many of those he points out in the King James version of the Bible.
If his pulpit enemies could talk with this man by his own fireside, they would pay less at
tention to Ingersoll himself and more to what he says. They would consider his mean
ing, rather than his motive.

As the Colonel is the most conspicuous denunciator of intolerance and bigotry in
America, he has been inevitably the greatest victim of these obstacles to mental freedom.
" To answer Ingersoll " is the pet ambition of many a young clergyman— the older ones
have either acquired prudence or are broad enough to concede the utility of even Agnostics
In the economy of evolution. It was with this very subject that we began our talk— the
uncharitttbleness of men, other wise good, in tbeir treatment of those whose religious view.*
differ from tueit own. (601)

6o2 INTERVIEWS.

brain. You will not try to change his thought by force, by
persecution, or by slander. You will not threaten him with
punishment— here or hereafter. You will give him your
thought, your reasons, your facts ; and there you will stop.
This is intellectual hospitality. You do not give up what
you believe to be the truth ; you do not compromise. You
simply give him the liberty you claim for yourself. The
truth is not affected by your opinion or by his. Both may
be wrong. For many years the church has claimed to have
the " truth," and has also insisted that it is the duty of
every man to believe it, whether it is reasonable to him or
not. This is bigotry in its basest form. Every man should
be guided by his reason ; should be true to himself ; should
preserve the veracity of his soul. Dach human being
should judge for himself. The man that believes that all
men have this right is intellectually hospitable.

Question. In the sharp distinction between theology and
religion that is now recognized by many theologians, and
in the liberalizing of the church that has marked the last
two decades, are not most of your contentions already
granted ? Is not the " lake of fire and brimstone " an obso
lete issue ?

Answer. There has been in the last few years a great ad
vance. The orthodox creeds have been growing vulgar
and cruel. Civilized people are shocked at the dogma of
eternal pain, and the belief in hell has mostly faded away.
The churches have not changed their creeds. They still
pretend to believe as they always have — but they have
changed their tone. God is now a father — a friend. He is
no longer the monster, the savage, described in the Bible.
He has become somewhat civilized. He no longer claims
the right to damn us because he made us. But in spite of
all the errors and contradictions, in spite of the cruelties
and absurdities found in the Scriptures, the churches still
insist that the Bible is inspired. The educated ministers ad-

INTERVIEWS. 603

mit that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses ; that
the Psalms were not written by David ; that Isaiah was the
work of at least three ; that Daniel was not written until
after the prophecies mentioned in that book had been ful
filled; that Ecclesiastes was not written until the second
century after Christ ; that Solomon's Song was not written
by Solomon ; that the book of Esther is of no importance ;
and that no one knows, or pretends to know who were the
authors of Kings, Samuel, Chronicles, or Job. And yet
these same gentlemen still cling to the dogma of inspira
tion ! It is no longer claimed that the Bible is true — but
inspired.

Question. Yet the sacred volume, no matter who wrote it,
is a mine of wealth to the student and the philosopher, is it
not ? Would you have us discard it altogether ?

Answer. Inspiration must be abandoned, and the Bible
must take its place among the books of the world. It con
tains some good passages, a little poetry, some good sense,
and some kindness ; but its philosophy is frightful. In
fact, if the book had never existed I think it would have
been far better for mankind. It is not enough to give up
the Bible; that is only the beginning. The supernatural
must be given up. It must be admitted that Nature has
no master ; that there never has been any interference from
without ; that man has received no help from heaven ; and
that all the prayers that have ever been uttered have died
unanswered in the heedless air. The religion of the super
natural has been a curse. We want the religion of use
fulness.

Question. But have you no use whatever for prayer — even
in the sense of aspiration — or for faith, in the sense of con
fidence in the ultimate triumph of the right ?

Answer. There is a difference between wishing, hoping,
believing, and — knowing. We can wish without evidence
or probability, and we can wish for the impossible — for

604 INTERVIEWS.

what we believe can never be. We cannot hope unless
there is in the mind a possibility that the thing hoped for
can happen. We can believe only in accordance with evi
dence, and we know only that which has been demonstrated.
I have no use for prayer ; but I do a good deal of wishing
and hoping. I hope that some time the right will triumph
— that Truth will gain the victory ; but I have no faith in
gaining the assistance of any god, or of any supernatural
power. I never pray.

Question. However fully materialism, as a philosophy,
may accord with the merely human reason, is it not wholly
antagonistic to the instinctive faculties of the mind?

Answer. Human reason is the final arbiter. Any system
that does not commend itself to the reason must fall. I do
not know exactly what you mean by materialism. I do not
know what matter is. I am satisfied, however, that without
matter there can be no force, no life, no thought, no reason.
It seems to me that mind is a form of force, and force can
not exist apart from matter. If it is said that God created
the universe, then there must have been a time when he
commenced to create. If at that time there was nothing in
existence but himself, how could he have exerted any
force ? Force cannot be exerted except in opposition to
force. If God was the only existence, force could not have
been exerted.

Question. But don't you think, Colonel, that the material
istic philosophy, even in the light of your own interpreta
tion, is essentially pessimistic ?

Answer. I do not consider it so. I believe that the pessi
mists and the optimists are both right. This is the worst
possible world, and this is the best possible world — because
it is as it must be. The present is the child, and the
necessary child, of all the past.

Question. What have you to say concerning the opera
tions of the Society for Psychical Research ? Do not it*

INTERVIEWS. 605

facts and conclusions prove, if not immortality, at least
the continuity of life beyond the grave ? Are the millions
of Spiritualists deluded ?

Answer. Of course I have heard and read a great deal
about the doings of the Society ; so, I have some knowledge
as to what is claimed by Spiritualists, by Theosophists, and
by all other believers in what are called " spiritual mani
festations." Thousands of wonderful things have been
established by what is called " evidence " — the testimony of
good men and women. I have seen things done that I
could not explain, both by mediums and magicians. I also
know that it is easy to deceive the senses, and that the old
saying " that seeing is believing " is subject to many excep
tions. I am perfectly satisfied that there is, and can be, no
force without matter ; that everything that is — all phenom
ena — all actions and thoughts, all exhibitions of force,
have a material basis — that nothing exists, — ever did, or
ever will exist, apart from matter. So I am satisfied that
no matter ever existed, or ever will, apart from force.

We think with the same force with which we walk. For
every action and for every thought, we draw upon the store
of force that we have gained from air and food. We create
no force ; we borrow it all. As force cannot exist apart
from matter, it must be used with matter. It travels only
on material roads. It is impossible to convey a thought to
another without the assistance of matter. No one can con
ceive of the use of one of our senses without substance.
No one can conceive of a thought in the absence of the
senses. With these conclusions in my mind — in my
brain — I have not the slightest confidence in " spiritual
manifestations," and do not believe that any message has
ever been received from the dead. The testimony that I
have heard — that I have read — coming even from men of
science — has not the slightest weight with me. I do not
pretend to see beyond the grave. I do not say that man is,

606 INTERVIEWS.

or is not, immortal. All I say is that there is no evidence
that we live again, and no demonstration that we do not.
It is better ignorantly to hope than dishonestly to affirm.

Question. And what do you think of the modern develop
ment of metaphysics — as expressed outside of the emotional
and semi-ecclesiastical schools? I refer especially to the
power of mind in the curing of disease — as demonstrated
by scores of drugless healers.

Answer. I have no doubt that the condition of the mind
has some effect upon the health. The blood, the heart, the
lungs answer — respond to — emotion. There is no mind
without body, and the body is affected by thought— by
passion, by cheerfulness, by depression. Still, I have not
the slightest confidence in what is called " mind cure." I
do not believe that thought, or any set of ideas, can cure
a cancer, or prevent the hair from falling out, or remove
a tumor, or even freckles. At the same time, I admit that
cheerfulness is good and depression bad. But I have no
confidence in what you call " drugless healers." If the
stomach is sour, soda is better than thinking. If one is in
great pain, opium will beat meditation. I am a believer
in what you call " drugs," and when I am sick I send for a
physician. I have no confidence in the supernatural.
Magic is not medicine.

Question. One great object of this movement, is to make
religion scientific — an aid to intellectual as well as spiritual
progress. Is it not thus to be encouraged, and destined to
succeed — even though it prove the reality and supremacy
of the spirit and the secondary importance of the flesh ?

Answer. When religion becomes scientific, it ceases to
be religion and becomes science. Religion is not intel
lectual — it is emotional. It does not appeal to the reason.
The founder of a religion has always said : " Let him that
hath ears to hear, hear ! " No founder has said : Let him
that hath brains to think, think ! Besides, we need not

INTERVIEWS. 607

trouble ourselves about " spirit " and " flesh." We know
that we know of no spirit — without flesh. We have no
evidence that spirit ever did or ever will exist apart from
flesh. Such existence is absolutely inconceivable. If we
are going to construct what you call a " religion," it must
be founded on observed and known facts. Theories, to be
of value, must be in accord with all the facts that are
known ; otherwise they are worthless. We need not try to
get back of facts or behind the truth. The why will for
ever elude us. You cannot move your hand quickly
enough to grasp your image back of the mirror. — Mind, New

York, March, 1899.

THIS CENTURY'S GLORIES.

The laurel of the nineteenth century is on Darwin's brow.
This century has been the greatest of all. The inventions,
the discoveries, the victories on the fields of thought, the
advances in nearly every direction of human effort are
without parallel in human history. In only two directions
have the achievements of this century been excelled. The
marbles of Greece have not been equaled. They still
occupy the niches dedicated to perfection. The sculptors
of our century stand before the miracles of the Greeks in
impotent wonder. They cannot even copy. They cannot
give the breath of life to stone and make the marble feel
and think. The plays of Shakespeare have never been ap
proached. He reached the summit, filled the horizon. In
the direction of the dramatic, the poetic, the human mind,
in my judgment, in Shakespeare's plays reached its limit.
The field was harvested, all the secrets of the heart were
told. The buds of all hopes blossomed, all seas were
crossed and all the shores were touched.

With these two exceptions, the Grecian marbles and the
Shakespeare plays, the nineteenth century has produced
more for the benefit of man than all the centuries of the

608 INTERVIEWS.

past. In this century, in one direction, I think the mind
has reached the limit. I do not believe the music of
Wagner will ever be excelled. He changed all passions,
longings, memories and aspirations into tones, and with
subtile harmonies wove tapestries of sound, whereon were
pictured the past and future, the history and prophecy of
the human heart. Of course Copernicus, Galileo, Newton,
and Kepler laid the foundations of astronomy. It may be
that the three laws of Kepler mark the highest point in
that direction that the mind has reached.

In the other centuries there is now and then a peak, but
through ours there runs a mountain range with Alp on
Alp — the steamship that has conquered all the seas ; the
railway, with its steeds of steel with breath of flame, covers
the land; the cables and telegraphs, along which lightning
is the carrier of thought, have made the nations neighbors
and brought the world to every home ; the making of paper
from wood, the printing presses that made it possible to
give the history of the human race each day ; the reapers,
mowers and threshers that superseded the cradles, scythes
and flails ; the lighting of streets and houses with gas and
incandescent lamps, changing night into day ; the invention
of matches that made fire the companion of man ; the pro
cess of making steel, discovered by Bessemer, saving for
the world hundreds of millions a year; the discovery of
anaesthetics, changing pain to happy dreams and making
surgery a science ; the spectrum analysis, that told us the
secrets of the suns ; the telephone, that transports speech,
uniting lips and ears ; the phonograph, that holds in dots
and marks the echoes of our words; the marvelous ma
chines that spin and weave, that manufacture the countless
things of use, the marvelous machines, whose wheels
and levers seem to think; the discoveries in chemistry,
the wave theory of light, the indestructibility of mat
ter and force; the discovery of microbes and bacilli, so that

INTERVIEWS. 609

now the plague can be stayed without the assistance of
priests.

The art of photography became known, the sun became
an artist, gave us the faces of our friends, copies of the
great paintings and statues, pictures of the world's won
ders, and enriched the eyes of poverty with the spoil of
travel, the wealth of art. The cell theory was advanced,
embryology was studied and science entered the secret
house of life. The biologists, guided by fossil forms, fol
lowed the paths of life from protoplasm up to man. Then
came Darwin with the "Origin of Species," " Natural Selec
tion," and the " Survival of the Fittest." From his brain
there came a flood of light. The old theories grew foolish
and absurd. The temple of every science was rebuilt.
That which had been called philosophy became childish
superstition. The prison doors were opened and millions
of convicts, of unconscious slaves, roved with joy over the
fenceless fields of freedom. Darwin and Haeckel and Hux
ley and their fellow-workers filled the night of ignorance
with the glittering stars of truth. This is Darwin's cen
tury. He gained the greatest victory, the grandest tri
umph. The laurel of the nineteenth century is on his brow.

Question. How does the literature of to-day compare
with that of the first half of the century, in your opinion ?

Answer. There is now no poet of laughter and tears, of
comedy and pathos, the equal of Hood. There is none
with the subtle delicacy, the aerial footstep, the flame-like
motion of Shelley ; none with the amplitude, sweep and
passion, with the strength and beauty, the courage and
royal recklessness of Byron. The novelists of our day are
not the equals of Dickens. In my judgment, Dickens wrote
the greatest of all novels. "The Tale of Two Cities" is
the supreme work of fiction. Its philosophy is perfect.
The characters stand out like living statues. In its pages
you find the blood and flame, the ferocity and self-sacrifice

6lO INTERVIEWS.

of the French Revolution. In the bosom of the Vengeance
is the heart of the horror. In 105, North Tower, sits one
whom sorrow drove beyond the verge, rescued from death
by insanity, and we see the spirit of Dr. Manette trem
blingly cross the great gulf that lies between the night of
dreams and the blessed day, where things are as they seem,
as a tress of golden hair, while on his hands and cheeks
fall Lucie's blessed tears. The story is filled with lights
and shadows, with the tragic and grotesque. While the
woman knits, while the heads fall, Jerry Cruncher gnaws
his rusty nails and his poor wife " flops " against his busi
ness, and prim Miss Pross, who in the desperation and
terror of love held Mme. Defarge in her arms and who in
the flash and crash found that her burden was dead, is
drawn by the hand of a master. And what shall I say of
Sydney Carton ? Of his last walk ? Of his last ride,
holding the poor girl by the hand? Is there a more
wonderful character in all the realm of fiction ? Sidney
Carton, the perfect lover, going to his death for the love of
one who loves another. To me the three greatest novels
are "The Tale of Two Cities," by Dickens, "Les Miser-
ables," by Hugo and 'Ariadne," by Ouida.

"Les Miserables" is full of faults and perfections. The
tragic is sometimes pushed to the grotesque, but from the
depths it brings the pearls of truth. A convict becomes
holier than the saint, a prostitute purer than the nun.
This book fills the gutter with the glory of heaven, while
the waters of the sewer reflect the stars.

In "Ariadne" you find the aroma of all art. It is a
classic dream. And there, too, you will find the hot blood
of full and ample life. Ouida is the greatest living writer
of fiction. Some of her books I do not like. If you wish
to know what Ouida really is, read " Wanda," " The Dog
of Flanders," " The Leaf in a Storm." In these you will
hear the beating of her heart.

INTERVIEWS. 6ll

Most of the novelists of our time write good stories.
They are ingenious, the characters are well drawn, but
they lack life, energy. They do not appear to act for
themselves, impelled by inner force. They seem to be
pushed and pulled. The same may be said of the poets.
Tennyson belongs to the latter half of our century. He
was undoubtedly a great writer. He had no flame or storm,
no tidal wave, nothing volcanic. He never overflowed the
banks. He wrote nothing as intense, as noble and pathetic
as the "Prisoner of Chillon;" nothing as purely poetic as
"The Skylark;" nothing as perfect as the "Grecian Urn,"
and yet he was one of the greatest of poets. Viewed from
all sides he was far greater than Shelley, far nobler than
Keats. In a few poems Shelley reached almost the perfect,
but many are weak, feeble, fragmentary, almost meaning
less. So Keats in three poems reached a great height — in
"St. Agnes's Eve," "The Grecian Urn "and "The Night
ingale" — but most of his poetry is insipid, without thought,
beauty or sincerity.

We have had some poets ourselves. Emerson wrote
many poetic and philosophic lines. He never violated any
rule. He kept his passions under control and generally
"kept off the grass." But he uttered some great and splen
did truths and sowed countless seeds of suggestion.
When we remember that he came of a line of New Eng
land preachers we are amazed at the breadth, the depth and
the freedom of his thought.

Walt Whitman wrote a few great poems, elemental,
natural — poems that seem to be a part of nature, ample as
the sky, having the rhythm of the tides, the swing of a
planet.

Whitcomb Riley has written poems of hearth and home,
of love and labor worthy of Robert Burns. He is the
sweetest, strongest singer in our country and I do not
know his equal in any land.

6l2 INTERVIEWS.

But when we compare the literature of the first half of
this century with that of the last, we are compelled to say
that the last, taken as a whole, is best. Think of the
volumes that science has given to the world. In the first
half of this century, sermons, orthodox sermons, were pub
lished and read. Now reading sermons is one of the lost
habits. Taken as a whole, the literature of the latter half
of our century is better than the first. I like the essays of
Prof. Clifford. They are so clear, so logical that they are
poetic. Herbert Spencer is not simply instructive, he is
charming. He is full of true imagination. He is not the
slave of imagination. Imagination is his servant. Huxley
wrote like a trained swordsman. His thrusts were never
parried. He had superb courage. He never apologized
for having an opinion. There was never on his soul the
stain of evasion. He was as candid as the truth. Haeckel
is a great writer because he reveres a fact, and would not
for his life deny or misinterpret one. He tells what he
knows with the candor of a child and defends his conclu
sions like a scientist, a philosopher. He stands next to
Darwin.

Coming back to fiction and poetry, I have great ad
miration for Edgar Fawcett. There is in his poetry
thought, beauty and philosophy. He has the courage of
his thought. He knows our language, the energy of
verbs, the color of adjectives. He is in the highest sense
an artist.

Question. What do you think of Hall Caine's recent
efforts to bring about a closer union between the stage and
pulpit ?

Answer. Of course, I am not certain as to the inten
tions of Mr. Caine. I saw "The Christian," and it did
not seem to me that the author was trying to catch the
clergy.

There is certainly nothing in the play calculated to please

INTERVIEWS. 613

the pulpit. There is a clergyman who is pious and heart
less. John Storm is the only Christian, and he is crazy.
When Glory accepts him at last, you not only feel, but you
know that she has acted the fool. The lord in the piece is
a dog, and the real gentleman is the chap that runs the
music hall. How the play can please the pulpit I do not
see. Storm's whole career is a failure. His followers turn
on him like wild beasts. His religion is a divine and dia
bolical dream. With him murder is one of the means of
salvation. Mr. Caine has struck Christianity a stinging
blow between the eyes. He has put two preachers on the
stage, one a heartless hypocrite and the other a madman.
Certainly I am not prejudiced in favor of Christianity, and
yet I enjoyed the play. If Mr. Caine says that he is trying
to bring the stage and the pulpit together, then he is a
humorist, with the humor of Rabelais.

Question. What do recent exhibitions in this city, of
scenes from the life of Christ, indicate with regard to the
tendencies of modern art ?

Answer. Nothing. Some artists love the sombre, the
melancholy, the hopeless. They enjoy painting the bowed
form, the tear-filled eyes. To them grief is a festival.
There are people who find pleasure in funerals. They love
to watch the mourners. The falling clods make music.
They love the silence, the heavy odors, the sorrowful
hymns and the preacher's remarks. The feelings of such
people do not indicate the general trend of the human
mind. Even a poor artist may hope for success if he
represents something in which many millions are deeply
interested, around which their emotions cling like vines. A
man need not be an orator to make a patriotic speech, a
speech that flatters his audience. So, an artist need not be
great in order to satisfy, if his subject appeals to the prej
udice of those who look at his pictures.

I have never seen a good painting of Christ. All the

614 INTERVIEWS.

Christs that I have seen lack strength and character. They
look weak and despairing. They are all unhealthy. They
have the attitude of apology, the sickly smile of non-resist
ance. I have never seen an heroic, serene and triumphant
Christ. To tell the truth, I never saw a great religious
picture. They lack sincerity. All the angels look almost
idiotic. In their eyes is no thought, only the innocence of
ignorance.

I think that art is leaving the celestial, the angelic, and is
getting in love with the natural, the human. Troyon put
more genius in the representation of cattle than Angelo and
Raphael did in angels. No picture has been painted of
heaven that is as beautiful as a landscape by Corot. The
aim of art is to represent the realities, the highest and
noblest, the most beautiful. The Greeks did not try to
make men like gods, but they made gods like men. So the
great artists of our day go to nature.

Question. Is it not strange that, with one exception, the
most notable operas written since Wagner are by Italian
composers instead of German ?

Answer. For many years German musicians insisted that
Wagner was not a composer. They declared that he pro
duced only a succession of discordant noises. I account
for this by the fact that the music of Wagner was not Ger
man. His countrymen could not understand it. They had
to be educated. There was no orchestra in Germany that
could really play " Tristan and Isolde." Its eloquence, its
pathos, its shoreless passion was beyond them. There is no
reason to suppose that Germany is to produce another
Wagner. Is England expected to give us another Shake
speare ? — The Sun, New York, March 19, 1899.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND THE WHIPPING-POST.

Question. What do you think of Governor Roosevelt's
decision in the case of Mrs. Place ?

Answer. I think the refusal of Governor Roosevelt to
commute the sentence of Mrs. Place is a disgrace to the
State. What a spectacle of man killing a woman — taking
a poor, pallid, frightened woman, strapping her to a chair
and then arranging the apparatus so she can be shocked to
death. Many call this a Christian country. A good many
people who believe in hell would naturally feel it their
duty to kill a wretched, insane woman.

Society has a right to protect itself, but this can be done
by imprisonment, and it is more humane to put a criminal
in a cell than in a grave. Capital punishment degrades
and hardens a community and it is a work of savagery. It is
savagery. Capital punishment does not prevent murder, but
sets an example — an example by the State — that is followed
by its citizens. The State murders its enemies and the citizen
murders his. Any punishment that degrades the punished,
must necessarily degrade the one inflicting the punishment.
No punishment should be inflicted by a human being that
could not be inflicted by a gentleman.

For instance, take the whipping-post. Some people are
in favor of flogging because they say that some offences are
of such a frightful nature that flogging is the only punish
ment. They forget that the punishment must be inflicted
by somebody, and that somebody is a low and contemptible
cur. I understand that John G. Shortall, president of the
Humane Society of Illinois, has had a bill introduced into
the Legislature of the State for the establishment of the
whipping-post.

The shadow of that post would disgrace and darken the

(€15)

6l6 INTERVIEWS.

whole State. Nothing could be more infamous, and yet
this man is president of the Humane Society. Now, the
question arises, what ishumane about this society ? Certainly
not its president. Undoubtedly he is sincere. Certainly
no man would take that position unless he was sincere.
Nobody deliberately pretends to be bad, but the idea of his
being president of the Humane Society is simply prepos
terous. With his idea about the whipping-post he might
join a society of hyenas for the cultivation of ferocity, for
certainly nothing short of that would do justice to his bill.
I have too much confidence in the legislators of the State,
and maybe my confidence rests in the fact that I do not
know them, to think that the passage of such a bill is possi
ble. If it were passed I think I would be justified in using
the language of the old Marylander, who said, " I have
lived in Maryland fifty years, but I have never counted
them, and my hope is, that God won't."

Question. What did you think of the late Joseph Medill ?

Answer. I was not very well acquainted with Mr. Medill.
I had a good many conversations with him, and I was quite
familiar with his work. I regard him as the greatest
editor of the Northwestern States and I am not sure that
there was a greater one in the country. He was one of the
builders of the Republican party. He was on the right
side of the great question of Liberty. He was a man of
strong likes and I may say dislikes. He never surrendered
his personality. The atom called Joseph Medill was never
lost in the aggregation known as the Republican party. He
was true to that party when it was true to him. As a rule
he traveled a road of his own and he never seemed to have
any doubt about where the road led. I think that he was
an exceedingly useful man. I think the only true religion
is usefulness. He was a very strong writer, and when
touched by friendship for a man, or a cause, he occasionally
wrote very great paragraphs, and paragraphs full of force
aud most admirably expressed. — T/U rnbune, Chicago, March 19, isax

EXPANSION AND TRUSTS.*

I am an expansionist. The country has the land hunger
and expansion is popular. I want all we can honestly get.

But I do not want the Philippines unless the Filipinos
want us, and I feel exactly the same about the Cubans.

We paid twenty millions of dollars to Spain for the Phil
ippine Islands, and we knew that Spain had no title to
them.

The question with me is not one of trade or convenience ;
it is a question of right or wrong. I think the best patriot
is the man who wants his country to do right.

The Philippines would be a very valuable possession to
us, in view of their proximity to China. But, however de
sirable they may be, that cuts no figure. We must do right.
We must act nobly toward the Filipinos, whether we get
the islands or not.

I would like to see peace between us and the Filipinos ;
peace honorable to both ; peace based on reason instead of
force.

If control had been given to Dewey, if Miles had been
sent to Manila, I do not believe that a shot would have
been fired at the Filipinos, and that they would have wel
comed the American flag.

Question. Although you are not in favor of taking the
Philippines by force, how do you regard the administra
tion in its conduct of the war.

Answer, They have made many mistakes at Washington,
and they are still making many. If it has been decided to
conquer the Filipinos, then conquer them at once. Let the

* This was Colonel lugersoir s last i aterviow. (017)

618 INTERVIEWS.

struggle not be drawn out and the drops of blood multi
plied. The Republican party is being weakened by inaction
at the Capital. If the war is not ended shortly, the party in
power will feel the evil effects at the presidential election.

Question. In what light do you regard the Philippines as
an addition to the territory of the United States ?

Answer. Probably in the future, and possibly in the near
future, the value of the islands to this country could hardly
be calculated. The division of China which is bound to
come, will open a market of four hundred millions of people.
Naturally a possession close to the open doors of the East
would be of an almost incalculable value to this country.

It might perhaps take a long time to teach the Chinese
that they need our products. But suppose that the Chinese
came to look upon wheat in the same light that other people
look upon wheat and its product, bread ? What an immense
amount of grain it would take to feed four hundred million
hungry Chinamen !

The same would be the case with the rest of our products.
So you will perhaps agree with me in my view of the im
mense value of the islands if they could but be obtained by
honorable means.

Question. If the Democratic party makes anti-imperialism
the prominent plank in its platform, what effect will it have
on the party's chance for success ?

Answer. Anti-imperialism, as the Democratic battle-cry,
would greatly weaken a party already very weak. It is the
most unpopular issue of the day. The people want expan
sion. The country is infected with the patriotic enthusiasm.
The party that tries to resist the tidal wave will be swept
away. Anybody who looks can see.

Let a band at any of the summer resorts or at the suburb
an breathing spots play a patriotic air. The listeners are
electrified, and they rise and off go their hats when " The

INTERVIEWS. 619

Star-Spangled Banner" is struck up. Imperialism cannot
be fought with success.

Question. Will the Democratic party have a strong issue
in its anti-trust cry ?

Answer. In my opinion, both parties will nail anti-trust
planks in their platforms. But this talk is all bosh with
both parties. Neither one is honest in its cry against trusts.
The one making the more noise in this direction may get
the votes of some unthinking persons, but every one who
is capable of reading and digesting what he reads, knows
full well that the leaders of neither party are sincere and
honest in their demonstrations against the trusts.

Why should the Democratic party lay claim to any anti
trust glory ? Is it not a Republican administration that is
at present investigating the alleged evils of trusts? — The

North American. Philadelphia, June 22, 1899.

UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY

A 001 341 932 o

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The works of Robert G. Ingersoll"

See other formats