informis/textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/politics/INGERSOLL/interv-4.txt

1366 lines
68 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Initial commit
2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00
21 page printout.
Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
INTERVIEWS
Contents of this file page
FUNERAL OF JOHN G. MILLS AND IMMORTALITY. 1
STAR ROUTE AND POLITICS. 6
THE INTERVIEWER. 11
POLITICS AND PROHIBITION. 13
THE REPUBLICAN DEFEAT IN OHIO. 15
THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL. 16
THE GRANT BANQUET. 18
ROBSON AND CRANE DINNER. 20
**** ****
This file, its printout, or copies of either
are to be copied and given away, but NOT sold.
Bank of Wisdom, Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
The Works of ROBERT G. INGERSOLL
**** ****
Robert G. Ingersoll rarely takes the trouble to answer
critics. His recent address over the dead body of his friend John
G. Mills has called forth a storm of denunciation from nearly every
pulpit in the country. The writer called at the Colonel's office in
New York Avenue yesterday and ask him to reply to some of the
points made against him. Reluctantly he assented.
FUNERAL OF JOHN G. MILLS AND IMMORTALITY.
Question. Have yon 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 missionary spirit, and
apparently want to 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.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
1
INTERVIEWS - FOURTH SERIES
Formerly they denied baptism to the children of the unbeliever,
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 follower 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 gratification 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
inhabited 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 uttering a curse. He was a brave and splendid man. An orthodox
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 orthodox refused to have her boy
buried with such a sermon -- stopped the funeral took the corpse
home, engaged a Universalist 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 religion
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 indebted 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
because 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 Scriptures -- and if some of
us are to be in heaven, and some in hell, then, for my part, I
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
2
INTERVIEWS - FOURTH SERIES
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 persons that I know, better than I can like him -- we have
more in common -- I know more about them; and how is 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 mistake. He was not a believer in total depravity, or
in the atonement. He denied these things. He was an unbeliever.
Now, let me ask, what consolation could a Christian 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 yon 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 consolation 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 friends: "Perhaps the man repented before he died;
perhaps 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 consolation 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 inquired of the
witch, and Samuel rose. Samuel did not pretend 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 asserted that there is no
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
3
INTERVIEWS - FOURTH SERIES
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 endeavored 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 disgusted with that kind of work, that the moment they
founded a nation for themselves they went out of the tomb business.
The Egyptians were believers in immorality, 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 show 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 he 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 mistaken 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, instead 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
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
4
INTERVIEWS - FOURTH SERIES
far better to prophesy good than evil. lt 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
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 civilization 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. Thousands 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 scales of eternal justice, and if the good deeds
preponderated 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
out weigh the evil, and, according to the religion of Egypt, the
latch-string of heaven would never be drawn in until the last
wanderer got home. Immorality 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 immorality has existed. But nothing could be worse than the
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
5
INTERVIEWS - FOURTH SERIES
immortality promised in the New Testament -- admitting that it is
so promised -- eternal joy side by side with eternal pain. Think of
living forever, knowing 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
consolation 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 Christian 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 unregenerate sympathy. Let them
tell their real doctrines. If they 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 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 following language: "The
idea of immortality, that like a sea has ebbed and flowed in the
human heart, with its countless 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.
Col. Ingersoll entertains very pronounced ideas concerning
President Arthur, Attorney-General Brewster and divers other
people. 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, determined 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 anywhere
else. The Colonel is an expert swimmer and as a floater cannot be
beaten. He was floating when we bumped. Spouting a pint of salt
water from his mouth, he nearly choked with laughter as, in answer
to my question he said:
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
6
INTERVIEWS - FOURTH SERIES
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 with confusion. The fact that Rardell 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 challenge 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 Rendell's
list the Government challenged three and Rerdell tried to challenge
the other. This was what is called a coincidence. 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 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.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
7
INTERVIEWS - FOURTH SERIES
Sixth. Bargains were made with Boone and Randell. The cases
against Boone were to be dismissed and Randell 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 folk -- that
they do not hold office forever -- that the Jupiter of to-day are
often the pygmies 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 different
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."
Question. Why did not Brewster speak?
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 understand 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 seem 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 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,
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
8
INTERVIEWS - FOURTH SERIES
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 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 industries, I am for protection
because it diversifies industries 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 inventors. 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 beautiful forms, is a question
of mind, There is a vast 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 reappeared and a vault of heavenly blue 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 form. And as he lumbered across the sand to the side door of
his comfortable cottage, some three hundred feet from the serf, the
necessity suggested contrast between Ingersoll in court and
Ingersoll in soaked flannels was illustrated with forcible
comicality. Half an hour later he was found in the cozy library
puffing a high flavored Havana, and listening to home-made 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.
Continues the conversation:
Question. In view of all this, where, do you think the
presidential candidate will come from?
Answer. From the West.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
9
INTERVIEWS - FOURTH SERIES
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-President 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.
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 disfranchise, 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 legislation 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?
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
10
INTERVIEWS - FOURTH SERIES
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 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 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 he 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 contented; 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 Harold, New York, July 1, 1883.
**** ****
THE INTERVIEWER.
Question. What do you think of newspaper interviewing?
Answer. I believe that James Redpath claims to have invented
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 accident. 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
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
11
INTERVIEWS - FOURTH SERIES
the interviewer is fair and honest he is useful, if the other way,
he is still interesting. On the whole, I regard the interviewer as
an exceedingly 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, doleful, philosophical
dissertation has had its day. The magazines 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 public grows 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 influence as
they did twenty-five years ago?
Answer. More, by the facts published, and less, by editorials.
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 narrower
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 orthodox, a few years ago would
have been denounced as an Infidel. 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 intellectual mummy, and excites attention only as a curiosity.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
12
INTERVIEWS - FOURTH SERIES
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 of the famous Mother
Hubbard. --
The Morning Journal, New York, July 3, 1883.
**** ****
POLITICS AND PROHIBITION.
Question. What do you think of the result in Ohio?
Answer. In Ohio prohibition did more harm to Republican
chances than anything else. The Germans hold the Republican
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 prevent 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 resenting 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 pursued by
the Republicans unpopular, they adopted the opposite mode, and
their success is a proof of that 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
elements Catholicism -- is endeavoring to get control.
Question. What causes operated for the Republican success 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
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
13
INTERVIEWS - FOURTH SERIES
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 Republican
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 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
leaders have dropped out and no persons have yet taken their
places. Blaine 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
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
14
INTERVIEWS - FOURTH SERIES
and protecting our manufacturers. I do not believe in tariff for
revenue only, but for revenue and protection. The Democrats would
have carried the country 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 embody it
in their speeches. I do not regard the tariff as a local, but a
national issue, notwithstanding Hancock inclined 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 Amendment
lost thousands of votes. The people of this country, no matter how
much they may deplore the evils of intemperance, 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.
Americans 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
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?
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
15
INTERVIEWS - FOURTH SERIES
Answer. I do not think so. Defeat is apt to breed dissension,
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 Pittsburgh 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 Democrats will win. It is
a question of "chinch-bugs," and floods and droughts.
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 one
I will telegraph you. --
The 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
theaters; 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 understood. 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 managing a theater 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
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
16
INTERVIEWS - FOURTH SERIES
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
which is as cruel as the lash of slavery.
I am willing to be on an equality in all hotels, in all cars,
in all theaters, 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 principles
for which the war was fought. It carries the doctrine 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 anticipate a pleasure -- for
his dissenting opinion. Only a little while ago, Justice Harlan
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 theater -- the idea that there shall be some ignominious
corner into which such a man 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 veterans 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.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
17
INTERVIEWS - FOURTH SERIES
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 appeal 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.
**** ****
THE GRANT BANQUET.
Chicago, November 13, 1879.
TWELFTH TOAST.
The Volunteer Soldiers of the Union Army, whose Valor and
patriotism saved to the world "a Government of the People, by the
People, and for the People."
WHEN the savagery of the lash, the barbarism of the chain, and
the insanity of secession confronted the civilization of our
country, the question "Will the great Republic defend itself?"
trembled on the lips of every lover of mankind.
The North, filled with intelligence and wealth -- children of
liberty -- marshaled her hosts and asked only for a leader. From
civil life a man, silent, thoughtful, poised and calm, stepped
forth, and with the lips of victory voiced the Nation's first and
last demand: "Unconditional and immediate surrender." From that
moment the end was known. That utterance was the first real
declaration of real war, and, in accordance with the dramatic
unities of mighty events, the great soldier who made it, received
the final sword of the Rebellion.
The soldiers of the Republic were not seekers after vulgar
glory. They were not animated by the hope of plunder or the love of
conquest. They fought to preserve the homestead of liberty and that
their children might have peace. They were the defenders of
humanity, the destroyers of prejudice, the breakers of chains, and
in the name of the future they slew the monster of their time. They
finished what the soldiers of the Revolution commenced. They re-
lighted the torch that fell from their august hands and filled the
world again with light. They blotted from the statute-book laws
that had been passed by hypocrites at the instigation of robbers,
and tore with indignant hands from the Constitution that infamous
clause that made men the catchers of their fellow-men. They made it
possible for judges to be just, for statesmen to be humane, and for
politicians to be honest. They broke the shackles from the limbs of
slaves, from the souls of masters, and from the Northern brain.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
18
THE GRANT BANQUET.
They kept our country on the map of the world, and our flag in
heaven. They rolled the stone from the sepulchre of progress, and
found therein two angels clad in shining garments -- Nationality
and Liberty.
The soldiers were the saviors of the Nation; they were the
liberators of men. In writing the Proclamation of Emancipation,
Lincoln, greatest of our mighty dead, whose memory is as gentle as
the summer air when reapers sing amid the gathered sheaves, copied
with the pen what Grant and his brave comrades wrote with swords.
Grander than the Greek, nobler than the Roman, the soldiers of
the Republic, with patriotism as shoreless as the air, battled for
the rights of others, for the nobility of labor; fought that
mothers might own their babes, that arrogant idleness should not
sear the back of patient toil, and that our country should not be
a many-headed monster made of warring States, but a Nation,
sovereign, great, and free.
Blood was water, money was leaves, and life was only common
air until one flag floated over a Republic without a master and
without a slave.
And then was asked the question: "Will a free people tax
themselves to pay a Nation's debt?"
The soldiers went home to their waiting wives, to their glad
children, and to the girls they loved -- they went back to the
fields, the shops, and mines. They had not been demoralized. They
had been ennobled. They were as honest in peace as they had been
brave in war. Mocking at poverty, laughing at reverses, they made
a friend of toil. They said: "We saved the Nation's life, and what
is life without honor?" They worked and wrought with all of labor's
royal sons that every pledge the Nation gave might be redeemed. And
their great leader, having put a shining band of friendship -- a
girdle of clasped and happy hands -- around the globe, comes home
and finds that every promise made in war has now the ring and gleam
of gold.
There is another question still: -- Will all the wounds of war
be healed? I answer, Yes. The Southern people must submit, -- not
to the dictation of the North, but to the Nation's will and to the
verdict of mankind. They were wrong, and the time will come when
they will say that they are victors who have been vanquished by the
right. Freedom conquered them, and freedom will cultivate their
fields, educate their children, weave for them the robes of wealth,
execute their laws, and fill their land with happy homes.
The soldiers of the Union saved the South as well as the
North. They made us a Nation. Their victory made us free and
rendered tyranny in every other land as insecure as snow upon
volcanoes' lips.
And now let us drink to the volunteers -- to those who sleep
in unknown, sunken graves, whose names are only in the hearts of
those they loved and left -- of those who only hear in happy dreams
the footsteps of return. Let us drink to those who died where
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
19
THE GRANT BANQUET.
lipless famine mocked at want; to all the maimed whose scars give
modesty a tongue; to all who dared and gave to chance the care and
keeping of their lives; to all the living and to all the dead, --
to Sherman, to Sheridan, and to Grant, the laureled soldier of the
world, and last, to Lincoln, whose loving life, like a bow of
peace, spans and arches all the clouds of war.
END
**** ****
ROBSON AND CRANE DINNER.
New York, November 21, 1807.
TOAST.
Comedy and Tragedy.
I BELIEVE in the medicine of mirth, and in what I might call
the longevity of laughter. Every man who has caused real, true,
honest mirth, has been a benefactor of the human race. In a world
like this, where there is so much trouble -- a world gotten up on
such a poor plan -- where sometimes one is almost inclined to think
that the Deity, if there be one, played a practical joke -- to
find, I say, in such a world, something that for the moment allows
laughter to triumph over sorrow, is a great piece of good fortune.
I like the stage, not only because General Sherman likes it -- and
I do not think I was ever at the theater in my life but I saw him
-- I not only like it because General Washington liked it, but
because the greatest man that ever touched this grain of sand and
tear we call the world, wrote for the stage, and poured out a very
Mississippi of philosophy and pathos and humor, and everything
calculated to raise and ennoble mankind.
I like to see the stage honored, because actors are the
ministers, the apostles, of the greatest man who ever lived, and
because they put flesh upon and blood and passion within the
greatest characters that the greatest man drew. This is the reason
I like the stage. It makes us human. A rascal never gained applause
on the stage. A hypocrite never commanded admiration, not even when
he was acting a clergyman -- except for the naturalness of the
acting. No one has ever yet seen any play in which, in his heart,
he did not applaud honesty, heroism, sincerity, fidelity, courage,
and self-denial. Never. No man ever heard a great play who did not
get up a better, wiser, and more humane man; and no man ever went
to the theater and heard Robson and Crane, who did not go home
better-natured, and treat his family that night a little better
than on a night when he had not heard these actors.
I enjoy the stage; I always did enjoy it. I love the humanity
of it. I hate solemnity; it is the brother of stupidity -- always.
You never knew a solemn man who was not stupid, and you never will.
There never was a man of true genius who had not the simplicity of
a child, and over whose lips had not rippled the river of laughter
-- never, and there never will be. I like, I say, the stage for its
wit and for its humor. I do not like sarcasm; I do not like mean
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
20
ROBSON AND CRANE DINNER.
humor. There is as much difference between humor and malicious wit
as there is between a bee's honey and a bee's sting, and the reason
I like Robson and Crane is that they have the honey without the
sting.
Another thing that makes me glad is, that I live in an age and
generation and day that has sense enough to appreciate the stage;
sense enough to appreciate music; sense enough to appreciate
everything that lightens the burdens of this life. Only a few years
ago our dear ancestors looked upon the theater as the vestibule of
hell; and every actor was going "the primrose way to the
everlasting bonfire." In those good old days, our fathers, for the
sake of relaxation, talked about death and graves and epitaphs and
worms and shrouds and dust and hell. In those days, too, they
despised music, cared nothing for art; and yet I have lived long
enough to hear the world -- that is, the civilized world -- say
that Shakespeare wrote the greatest book that man has ever read. I
have lived long enough to see men like Beethoven and Wagner put
side by side with the world's greatest men -- great in imagination
-- and we must remember that imagination makes the great difference
between men. I have lived long enough to see actors placed with the
grandest and noblest, side by side with the greatest benefactors of
the human race.
There is one thing in which I cannot quite agree with what has
been said. I like tragedy, because tragedy is only the other side
of the shield and I like both sides. I love to spend an evening on
the twilight boundary line between tears and smiles. There is
nothing that pleases me better than some scene, some act, where the
smile catches the tears in the eyes; where the eyes are almost
surprised by the smile, and the smile touched and softened by the
tears. I like that. And the greatest comedians and the greatest
tragedians have that power; and, in conclusion, let me say, that it
gives me more than pleasure to acknowledge the debt of gratitude I
owe, not only to the stage, but to the actors whose health we drink
to-night.
**** ****
Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
The Bank of Wisdom is a collection of the most thoughtful,
scholarly and factual books. These computer books are reprints of
suppressed books and will cover American and world history; the
Biographies and writings of famous persons, and especially of our
nations Founding Fathers. They will include philosophy and
religion. all these subjects, and more, will be made available to
the public in electronic form, easily copied and distributed, so
that America can again become what its Founders intended --
The Free Market-Place of Ideas.
The Bank of Wisdom is always looking for more of these old,
hidden, suppressed and forgotten books that contain needed facts
and information for today. If you have such books please contact
us, we need to give them back to America.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
21

Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink