[* 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, 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 he 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:]
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 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 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
Rerdell'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.
_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
the 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 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 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 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 the question.
They hate to give up the word "only." Only for that word they
might have succeeded in 1880. If they can 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 too many millions of people
interested. The country is becoming alike interested in 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 surf, the necessarily
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.