_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. Ingersoll has been so criticised and maligned for defending Mr. Dorsey in the Star Route cases, 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 indorser of Mr. Dorsey"s paper. --C. F.
FARRELL.]
PLAGIARISM AND POLITICS.
_Question_. What have you to say about the charges published in this morning"s _Herald_ to the effect that you copied your lecture about "Mistakes of Moses" from a chapter bearing the same t.i.tle 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 administration, 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 Blaine had been elected. I wanted the Republican party to succeed and fully expected to see Mr. Blaine 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 reformed and I hope the Democrats will be wise enough to do so.
_Question_. How will the Democratic victory affect the colored 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 unconst.i.tutional and that the Federal Government 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 part in the campaign?
_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 Blaine had a walkover, that he was certain to carry New York. I had business of my own to attend to and did not want to interfere 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 certain 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 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 succeed with almost unknown men. Parties should not belong 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 evidence, 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 behave 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 connection between Romanism and rebellion. Ten times as many Methodists and twenty times as many Baptists went into the Rebellion as Catholics. Thousands of Catholics fought as 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 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 position 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 President.
_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 Republican 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 circ.u.mstances, 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. If we expect to win in 1888 we must welcome recruits.
--_The Plain Dealer_, Cleveland, Ohio, Dec. 11, 1884.
RELIGIOUS PREJUDICE.
_Question_. Will a time ever come when political campaigns will be conducted independently of religious prejudice?
_Answer_. As long as men are prejudiced, they will probably 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 G.o.d instead of from his own reason, or from his fellow-citizens, and who thinks that he should do something for the glory of G.o.d instead 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 const.i.tutions. 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 G.o.d 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 government. I think that religious prejudices are growing weaker because religious belief is growing weaker. And these prejudices --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 and Atheist President than a p.r.o.nounced Catholic.
_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 cannot be known. Sensible men know that n.o.body knows whether an infinite G.o.d exists or not.
Sensible men know that an infinite personality cannot, by human testimony, be established. Sensible men are giving up trying to answer the questions of origin and destiny, and are paying more attention to what happens between these questions--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 religion are compatible--that is to say, can a man be an evolutionist 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 understood, of course that and evolution are absolutely incompatible. Christianity pretends to be not only the truth, but, so far as religion is concerned, the whole truth. Christianity 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 inexpressible conflict between Christianity and Science, and both cannot long inhabit the same brain. You cannot harmonize evolution and the atonement. The survival of the fittest does away with original sin.
_Question_. From your knowledge of the religious tendency 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 orthodoxy is already unpopular. Most ministers are endeavoring 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 superst.i.tion. What they call religion rests upon a supposed relation between man and G.o.d. In what they call religion man is asked to do something for G.o.d. As G.o.d wants nothing, and can by no possibility accept anything, such a religion is simply superst.i.tion. Humanity is the only possible religion. Whoever imagines that he can do anything for G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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.