_Question_. What is your opinion of the peculiar institution 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 talking for both sides, the institution
is a success. Such interviews are always interesting, and, as a
rule, the questions are to the point and the answers perfectly
responsive. There is probably a little too much interviewing, and
to 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 interviewd 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 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 interviews?
_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 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 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 respectability 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 unrestricted 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, than 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 feeling, 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 based upon religion
and rascality--that is to say, inspiration 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 prejudices 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 "Spiritualism," 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 willing 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 attending 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 profession,
but men of genius are scarce. All the ministers, except Messrs.
Moody and Jones, are busy explaining away the contradiction between
inspiration and demonstration.
_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," Buechner's "Force and Matter," "The
History of the Christian Religion" 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?
_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 punishment 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_, Cincinnati, Ohio, September 5, 1885.